Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive901

Eyes needed for BLPN thread

Admins please see Please see WP:BLPN threads: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Boxingmojo_at_Ahmed_Mohamed_clock_incident, and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Weasel_Zippers_source_and_others.2C_at_page_with_controversial_claims_about_14-year-old-boy. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 00:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. TheRedPenOfDoom, Aquillion and MarkBernstein have edited a number of articles together making similar arguments, supporting/opposing the same edits, etc. The fundamental issue here appears to be WP:TAGTEAM not WP:BLP. 168.1.99.198 (talk) 01:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:EVADE much? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith. It's not unusual to find people with similar outlooks and interests editing the same articles on high-profile incidents; as far as I know, I've never communicated with any of those people off-wiki, and even on-wiki my contact with them has mostly been limited to being on the same talk pages. The fact that there are WP:BLP issues on this particular article, meanwhile, seems pretty clear-cut to me -- a lot of the controversial stuff in the article deals with fairly WP:FRINGE conspiracy theories about a living subject who's currently in the news, many of which are sourced to blogs, tabloids, and similar low-quality sources, or which involve giving heavy weight to individual editorials. I mean, we can argue about individual sources, claims, theories, and so on, and which ones it's WP:DUE to cover in the article, but I think it's silly to suggest that there's no BLP issues at all. --Aquillion (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

It's confusing because there are requests for comment on this situation on the article talk page, on AN, on ANI, BLPN and FTN. Could this debate over sources and possible sanctions be centralized in one forum? It makes it difficult to follow the threads of discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• The article is only 46k--surely we can do better than that. At least the "Reactions" section is twice as long as the section describing the events. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Blocked them earlier. Before I saw this. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Repeated failure to assume good faith

For several weeks now, Twirlypen has been accusing me of having some ulterior motive in my editing practices. He appears to be basing this on nothing more than my disagreeing with him, and his inability to convince me of the merits of his position when we do disagree. Rather than assuming good faith in my edits, he has come to the conclusion that I am being deliberately disruptive because I am not getting my way, and he assumes that because of my block history, he is free to disregard any contribution that I make. This has come to a head in the past hour when I made a series of edits to 2016 Formula One season. In this edit, I clearly explained the reasoning behind my edits: that the sport's highest authority recognised certain competitors in a particular way. Within minutes, Twirlypen had reverted it with this edit, and his edit summary makes it clear that he thinks that I am up to something. His subsequent edits then restored that content on the grounds that he had checked the entry list and came to the conclusion that those original edits were correct after all. His edit summary made it pretty clear that he reverted those edits on the grounds that I had some ulterior motive, rather than based on the interests of the page, and he further assumed that I did not check the source (of which many are provided), despite my raising the issue in a related merger discussion.

This has been going on for weeks—since my last block expired. Twirlypen has clearly failed to assume good faith on multiple occasions, and he has let that assumption dictate his editing practices. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Please note that the edit I reverted contained the edit summary which amounted to "I saw it on TV", without citing the actual entry list. I only restored it once I did the fact-checking for myself. PM then reverted another, unrelated edit I made based on COMMONNAME, seemingly erroneously, as it had nothing to do with what the user saw on TV. Let it also be known that this user has also had other AGF issues with other editors. I never seem to have this problem continually with anyone else on Wikipedia. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 08:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I have since provided solid reasoning for my edits—a standard that Twirlypen has not expected or demanded of anyone else; had anyone else made them, he would have accepted them at face value. If other editors have AGF issues, it is because Twirlypen has vehemently campaigned against me simply because I disagree with him. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Well those are baseless accusations if I ever heard of one and you're on the verge of violating AGF yourself with them. Campaigned against you? And that discussion you just linked proved enough that we can get along just fine from one discussion to the next - once you do explain your edits beyond "I saw it on TV". If I had a campaign against you, I'd have opposed it simply because it was your idea. Believe it or not, I do agree with you sometimes. I have revised plenty of other editors' contributions if their UNSOURCED changes have an edit summary of "I saw it on TV" or whatever else that doesn't substatiate anything. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 08:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Like I said to you, ignoring AGF is a slippery slope: you assume that I have an agenda; I assume that you're looking to discredit my edits at every opportunity. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Which my contribution history clearly proves I don't do. This pretty much makes this whole case a mulligan as you've just openly admitted to not AGF with me while simultaneously accusing me. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 08:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much every discussion we have sees you accusing me of having an ulterior motive at some point—usually around the time you feel that you have made your case, but have failed to convince me. And, as evidenced by the example I gave above, you openly reverted edits on the grounds that I made them, insinuating said ulterior motive in the process, rather than judging the merits of the edits themselves. If I have failed to assume good faith, it is only because you have repeatedly accused me of deliberately trying to disrupt articles because I am not getting my way. And given your tendency to drag up previous, unrelated discussions and present them as evidence of my supposed wrongdoing in this "ulterior motive", I would say that this is far from moot. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

My edit summaries clearly state that the reverts were made because they were based off what you claimed to see on TV, not because you made them. These accusations are baseless and are premeditated that I don't follow AGF, which in itself violates AGF. Dragging up previous, unrelated discussions... huh... sounds a heck of a lot like what you are doing right now. If this gets me a time-out, it will almost certainly earn you one as well. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 10:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

In the interest of not turning this section alone into another 100kb+ thread (which tends to happen between this user and I) where nothing gets solved, I'll abstain from any non-constructive edits here with Prisonermonkeys and will only respond if addressed by someone else. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 10:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Next time (if there is a next time), I recommend not responding at all until reviewers have commented on the original posting. NE Ent 11:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm seeing reasonable discussions at both Talk:2016_Formula_One_season#Consistency_in_wlink_titles and corresponding project page Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One#Red_Bull.2FRed_Bull_Racing and encouraged both editors to focus on the topic and not each other Comment on content, not on the contributor. Recommend close with no action. NE Ent 11:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I"ll suggest a trout for both. Tvx1 12:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

NE Ent, I hate to be a pain, but with this edit, Twirlypen has failed to assume good faith yet again. In particular, this comment:

"the discussion gets dragged out to the point of ridiculousness and the article/project grinds to a halt [...] the only breaks or periods of calmness we have around here are when they're blocked."

In the context of the discussion, this edit was intended to discredit me in the eyes of another editor who agreed with Twirlypen after Twirlypen became frustrated that I had not accepted his argument—something that he clearly denied yesterday in this very discussion:

"those are baseless accusations if I ever heard of one and you're on the verge of violating AGF yourself with them. Campaigned against you?"

And such is the kind of experience that I have with Twirlypen: if I do not accept his arguments when he feels that I should have, he immediately attacks me by accusing me of trying to be disruptive for the sake of a vendetta because I am not getting my own way, and using my block history as a means of undermining me in the eyes of other editors. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I must say that the disputes these two get themselves embroiled in every other day over the past few weeks are highly disruptive and seriously harming the reputation of the F1 WikiProject. I fear that If they cannot manage to discuss with each other in a constructive manner, the only option remaining would be a topic ban for both or at the very least an interaction ban. Tvx1 12:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Bates College

• Bates College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm requesting help here for several reasons. Perhaps the most obvious is that a user who appears to have conflict of interest persists in adding promotional content and removing maintenance templates. The second is that I've reverted some of their edits and attempted to copy edit using two IPs--that's not an attempt to be sly, but a frustrating by-product of my internet connection. I don't want to be targeted for doing this to avoid an edit warring charge. The overarching concern is with general promotional tone, and a history section that was largely copied from the college's website and publications; most of that section has to go, though parsing just what remains will take some patience. My estimate is that 75% is a copyvio. For all these reasons, any and all help will be appreciated. Thanks, 73.159.24.89 (talk) 02:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• I really do not approve of "any and all", but that's just me I suppose. I see that ElKevbo is on the case too. Tell me, please, what the URL is that you think content was copied from. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
• Never mind, I saw it in the history. Last question, and I hope you can answer it before I do, what is the first edit in the history that contains copied/copyvioed material? Drmies (talk) 03:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

  Okay, so not 'any and all.' But you're awfully picky. By my reckoning the first copyvio sentence is "Cheney assembled a six-person faculty...." and much, though not all, that follows is downhill from there, and was taken from [1], which dates from 2002-2003. Sorry again for the jumping IP. And I won't turn down payment from Jimbo. Believe it or not, simultaneous with playing here I've finished a gripping essay on 20th century art for publication. Well, at least my immediate loved ones will find it gripping. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

  • • Apart from the blatant copyvio identified by the OP/IP, I found copy-pasting from three other web-pages of the school. The whole article needs to be checked; I've blanked it and listed it at WP:CP for processing. 73.159.24.89, for another time: if you find hard evidence of copyright violation as you did here, please either remove the copyvio material or blank it and list the article. Good catch here! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers. I didn't comprehend the full extent of the copyvio. Much appreciated, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• If either (or any) of you can give me a diff for the first edit where this happens I can take some action. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Template:Corus Entertainment

"User:Spshu, you have repeatedly been edit warring against the IP edits, which are clearly in line with my edits – and more importantly, the actual sourcing, since your own sources do not support almost any of your changes (with the singular exception of the Nelvana change, which does not make sense for this template anyways). You are now fighting against two levels of consensus. Mdrnpndr (talk) 13:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)"

What he said. But he won't stop. Ban him. MarcoPolo250 (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)MarcoPolo250

One MarcoPolo, you have not even joined the discussion. Two, you indicate that you don't care one whit about sources with this edit summary: "...'Sources' be damned.)" Mdrnpndr was block indefinitely for lying that his source were automatically valid no matter what they are. Consensus is developed on the talk page, not like your quote of Mdrnpndr does above by inflating IP edits to the level of discussion consensus. So basic, you do not want me to use reliable sources. Spshu (talk) 18:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit-warring and personal attacks at Turkey by a user who was recently blocked for it

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Heimdallr of Æsir has been blocked by admin Nyttend for edit-warring and personal attacks just last week (see ANI report here). Nevertheless, Heimdallr of Æsir hasn't stopped the disruption since. Even when told to participate in the ongoing talk page discussion, the user continues to repeatedly edit-war ([2][3][4][5][6]). The user then proceeds attacking those he engages with:

I used to consider myself a Hellenophile (listening to Dalaras, etc.) but thanks to Greeks like Dr.K and Athenean, I can't help but wish for the complete economic collapse and starvation of Greece.

Even with a block, the user just does not seem to stop. Étienne Dolet (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

He did the right thing: the source image, a US Government work, clearly describes this as being merely Kurdish-inhabited. I fully protected the article and then reverted the hoaxing, but instead I came quite close to blocking all involved except for Heimdallr of Æsir. [This was written before an edit-conflict. I'm going to ask Black Kite for an unblock.] Nyttend (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'm about to unblock - the above is fair enough - but I've also noticed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lord of Rivendell now. Black Kite (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend and Black Kite Are were really going to tolerate a user who just said "I can't help but wish for the complete economic collapse and starvation of Greece." towards his fellow Wikipedia users? Let alone the fact that he was blocked for similar threats at the very same article just a week ago. I'd also argue that the article doesn't need protection since the problems at Turkey was a result of a single user. Also, the caption to the photograph of which you just changed wasn't ever discussed. Kurds not only inhabit that part of the world, but they also inhabit Istanbul, Izmir, Ankara, and virtually every other city in Turkey. But of course this was never discussed because of continuing edit-warring. Besides, the map is known at "Kurdish lands" and not Kurdish inhabited areas by its very source [7]. Étienne Dolet (talk) 15:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Let me turn your question around: are we really going to tolerate several users actively hoaxing in an article? Please look at the source image, which specifically says "Kurdish-inhabited area". Personal attacks are unhelpful because they hurt the community atmosphere, but they don't directly affect what readers see. Hoaxing, however, directly affects what readers see; it will not be tolerated. Nyttend (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks are not just "unhelpful", they're prohibited within this project. Especially when the mentioned user has been blocked for doing just that a week ago. What makes this time around so different? Kurds inhabit not only that part of Turkey, but all over the country. It's very vague to simply point out that Kurds inhabited areas. And it's unfortunate to discuss this at an ANI board due to constant edit-warring by this user. This has resulted in a much bigger mess than it should have been. A simple continuation of the ongoing discussion at the talk page would have been suffice. Étienne Dolet (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Let me be very clear and simple, then. You and several other editors added a statement to this article claiming that the map represented Kurdish-majority areas of the country. This idea was not represented by the source image. You and others claimed that the source said something that it didn't: this is hoaxing, a much more fundamental problem than personal attacks. Another editor reverted the hoaxing and returned the article to a correct representation of the source. You then attempted to get an administrator to block the editor who reverted the hoaxing, and when the article was protected instead of you and the other hoaxers getting blocked, you objected. People who revert hoaxes, like people who revert vandalism, are helping and warrant thanks, not sanctions, while people who add hoaxes, like people who add vandalism, are harming and warrant sanctions, not thanks; we show them the door. If you want to avoid that happening, let me suggest that you stop asking for sanctions to be handed out. Nyttend (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend, I can't force you to have sanctions carried out. At this point, I just want to clarify my position. The talk page is used to discuss matters you mention here. And since it wasn't properly utilized by a user who would much rather edit-war, the problems became much worse. Calling this a hoax, without proper discussion at the talk page shouldn't be recommended either. Especially when there's a consensus by Greek, Turkish, and Armenian interested users alike. Kurds inhabit areas outside of the shaded area of the map too. But why aren't those parts shaded? Does inhabited mean plurality? Kurdish 'inhabited', for example, can also mean majority and there's secondary sources to prove that. Who's to say it isn't and why? Questions like this need to be discussed. All of these terminologies and their significations could and should be easily misleading unless clarified. I think that should be done at a more appropriate forum than this. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

No. The source distinctly did not say "Kurdish majority", but you made it look like it. If you continue attempting to introduce hoaxes, or you continue arguing for their inclusion, you will be blocked. Nyttend (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Wait a moment. Sorry Nyttend, I've undone your closure here. First, please don't keep using the term "hoaxing", that's not what we're dealing with here. The person who first added the map, Athenean, [8] had just previously also added a sourced textual description [9] that said that "Kurds make up a majority in the provinces of Dersim, Bingol, Mus, Agri, Igdir, Elazig, Diyarbakir, Batman, Sirnak, Bitlis, Van, Mardin, Siirt and Hakkari, a near majority in Sanliurfa province (47%), and a large minority in Kars province (20%)." I haven't seen anybody challenging the correctness of the sourcing for this sentence. I assume that Athenean believed in good faith that the textual description enumerating those provinces matched the area described in the map, in which case his use of the map with the "majority" caption would have been legitimate. If he was mistaken in this assumption, overlooking that there might have been some factual differences between the two areas, that would make it a case of inadvertent source misuse, but not "hoaxing", which by definition would have to be deliberate. Certainly this should have been hacked out on the talkpage. In any case, I find the SPI on the "Heimdallr of Æsir" account convincing, having been familiar with the "Shuppiluliuma" sock drawer for years, so I intend to close that with an indef block on the sock, irrespective of the rights or wrongs of this particular edit war. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree with this. Was surprised the close referred to hoaxing in such a strong manner. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

When I started the original SPI for the Lord of Rivendell back in April 2014, I thought I had found the master. It turns out that the master was even older from 2007 numbering close to one hundred socks. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shuppiluliuma. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, agree. I undid my block for edit-warring because I did think the SPI was convincing, as mentioned above. Black Kite (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Black Kite. Also for your warning the sock-farmer about his personal attacks. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Like I said at the parallel WP:AN#Possible abuse of admin tools by User:Nyttend discussion, I've unprotected the page. Nyttend, if you would block anyone over this (or use your admin tools in another way in this incident), it is very likely that your action will very swiftly be overturned based on WP:INVOLVED and that your behaviour will seriously be scrutinized. Please take a step back and instead discuss this at Talk:Turkey in a collaborative, non-confrontational manner. Fram (talk) 14:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• Using the word "hoaxing" once to mean "editing which I think was not supported by the sources, but for which I offer no evidence of bad faith", might be just a careless slip, and we are all careless at times. However, to repeat the same use of the word, so emphatically, cannot be seen as a slip: it is calculated and intentional. When that is done by an administrator, who also at the same time dismisses apparently without any thought genuine concerns about other editing problems, there is, I think, reason for concern. If, as Fram seems to be suggesting, that administrator has also taken administrative action while being involved, then that becomes reason for very serious concern. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • the only "administrative action" I've seen is reverting the page to his preferred version after protecting it, i.e. editing through (self-imposed) full-protection to get the result you want. He has made threats above to make further admin actions (i.e. blocks) on this issue against anyone who makes the offending edit again. Oh, and closing a thread about you isn't an abuse of admin tools, but very poor form in any case. Fram (talk) 14:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Fram and JamesBWatson for looking into this matter. And if Nyttend continues the same refrains towards me and other users, what do you suggest be the proper way of handling it? Étienne Dolet (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Any further admin action by Nyttend (protection, blocking, editing through protection...) on this issue should be reverted and reported here. A lapse in a (for him or her) heated situation is not a major problem (it is a problem, but nothing to take further action on besides immediate repair), but continuing to act like that after having been adviced by multiple uninvolved people that he should stop is a real issue which should be handled at ANI and/or ArbCom. But let's not get ahead of ourselves, chances are that things will return to normal now. Fram (talk) 14:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:AN preferred, as a pattern of misuse isn't really an "incident." But hopefully as Fram says this is a moot point.NE Ent 14:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

He is continuing his attacks on Fram's talkpage with edit-summary Your actions will long be remembered. I don't think he is getting any message at all. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I also think misusing the protection log edit-summary to attack other editors for "hoaxing" is a serious abuse of admin tools. Normal editors cannot respond to such attacks because they do not have access to protection tools. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

His abuse included calling my replies to his attacks "agitation" on my talkpage and concluding Further agitation will be ignored.. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Also baiting me with an edit-for-block combo: If you wish, I can unprotect the page to enable you to restore the hoax to the article, but such will result in an immediate reversion and block. These were some rather brutal attacks which are unprecedented in my almost ten-year presence on this project. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Harassment by user Iryna Harpy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wanted to let you know that I've been harassed by the user Iryna Harpy (IH).

User IH [10] has made a personal attack against me on another user's talk page [11] after I posted that other user a comment.

In their personal attack on me, IH has accused me of being "disruptive". I have read the Wikipedia definition of a disruptive user [12], and none of that definition applies to my activity. Falsely accusing someone of being "disruptive" is; however, a form of harassment.

I have also noticed that item (5), which is "Leaving hostile messages on a user's talk page, or attacking a user for items discussed with a third party on their talk page" does in fact closely match the behavior of IH. So ironically, while IH has accused me of being disruptive, it is actually them who is disruptive.

Since IH addressed me on that page, I replied to them, and also provided additional information to the talk page owner, explaining my rationale behind my first comment, and also informed IH that their accusatory and adversarial tone is not appreciated. Also raised my suspicions regarding their emotional involvement and true motives regarding article neutrality. IH reverted my comment from the other user's talk page [13] and accused me of making personal attacks on them [14].

The reason IH gave in their revert of my comment was "Using another user's talk page to engage with me." I do not believe this is proper reasoning, since it was them who engaged me, and I was just replying, defending myself from their accusations, and also providing additional information to the talk page owner. Therefore, their revert of my edit was not reasonable, and a form of harassment.

Nevertheless, if there is indeed a Wikipedia editing guideline that prohibits users from engaging other users on talk pages that the recipient users are not owners of, then it would be IH who knowingly and deliberately violated that guideline [15]. So if they knew it was prohibited, but did it anyway, that's deliberate harassment, and if it is not actually prohibited, but they falsely claimed it is, then that's harassment too.

In an attempt to end their harassment, I reverted their initial harassing comment [16] and also warned them to stop making personal attacks against me [17].

IH then accused me of vandalising a talk page [18] and [19], I presume in response to me giving them warning against personal attacks. This indicates that IH was not remorseful for their actions. And falsely accusing someone of vandalism in response to a warning against personal attacks is also harassment.

IH then restored back their harassing comment [20], and posted a new warning on my talk page, accusing me of "refactoring others' talk page comments" and removing their "legitimate talk page comments" [21]. I did not refactor their harassing comments, I reverted them. And their comments were not legitimate. Seems to me that it is IH that's engaged in illegitimate attacks and harassment.

User IH must be prevented from engaging in these attacks and harassment, and in addition to that, should be sanctioned accordingly, to be discouraged from such behavior in the future and / or with other users, and to serve as an example for others who might also want to engage in such behavior and promote such negative culture, as such culture and behavior is contrary to the Wikipedia's stated mission of empowering and engaging people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.24.75.223 (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

User IH has been notified of this report [22] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.24.75.223 (talk) 21:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

As the article in question is Sabra (company) and the dispute revolves around Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, I'm actually curious if the page falls under discretionary sanctions. GAB^Hello! 22:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

It's already stated as much in the big yellow header on the talk page. The article falls under WP:ARBPIA. Blackmane (talk) 02:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The "Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions" carries the ARBPIA notification. The Sabra (company) article has no such no such template in place. In fact, there isn't even one comment on it... and no eyes on it other than a couple of regular editors (myself included), both of whom have been accused of 'harassment' by an IP who's made it clear that s/he is WP:NOTHERE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant Sabra. GAB^Hello! 19:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• Well, nobody acquitted themselves admirably here. Yes, as an experienced editor, Iryna Harpy knows that it is against policy to edit or remove another editor's post on a talk page other than her own, except in the case of obvious vandalism or trolling. And since she had initiated the contact, it was doubly wrong. Had someone dialed back the escalation at this point all would have been well. What she initially said to you (accusing you of being deliberately disruptive) was not in my mind a personal attack per se (and I'll let others determine whether it was warranted or not), and you were well within your rights to respond to her comment/accusation there. It's sad when IPs get treated this way, on the understanding that they don't know their way enough around Wikipedia to object or to defend themselves. It's sad that you have to bring this sort of behavior to ANI. I say Iryna needs a stern warning and a review of WP:TPO, and a direction to leave the IP and its talk-page edits alone on talk pages other than her own. As far as the Sabra article and any other Israeli-related articles, you need to discuss your views on the talk pages of the articles themselves and establish WP:CONSENSUS before repeatedly reverting or adding material. Hope that helps. Softlavender (talk) 04:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Softlavender, have you actually looked at the history of both the article in question (no, I was not the only editor to revert this IP for OR and POV content changes), or the context in which I removed the 'comment' on Euphoria42's talk page? Have you even looked at the IP's contributions? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Iryna, I have. None of them excuse (in fact nothing would ever excuse) your repeatedly violating WP:TPO, especially when you had addressed the IP first on that talk page thread. Softlavender (talk) 04:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

"It's sad when IPs get treated this way" (sic), and, "I say Iryna Harpy needs a stern warning and a review of WP:TPO" (sic)? It's reassuring to know that you're such a committed Wikipedian that you are so outraged by my behaviour. Naturally, there is nothing dishonest or misleading about the IP's missive on Euphoria42's stating that "... you reverted undisputed content along with disputed content at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sabra_%28company%29&type=revision&diff=677379819&oldid=677379551". Was this an honest statement on behalf of the IP, or was was it a big fib? Aside from the WP:POV WP:SYNTH reverted, there was pure op-ed reverted in the form of "... though calls for boycotts at a number of colleges and universities, as at Bowdoin College and Wesleyan University, have failed." Added to that, it is I who suggested that the IP take this to the ANI if they are unhappy with my editing practices. Nevertheless, it is obviously undesirable and un-Wikipedian to for me to act so shamelessly as to understand this to be 'trolling' behaviour by such an obvious candidate for neutral, quality editing with a view to improving the project. I consider my hand smacked, and fully understand why you should encourage other regulars to demand that I be flogged for being such a nasty piece of work. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

If you want to institute a possible boomerang for the filer, or scrutiny of their edits/behavior, that's one thing. But that's not what the OP or my post was about -- it's about you violating WP:TPO, which is very straightforward and does not deserve the parody or dramatization you are giving it. Another editor's behavior does not warrant violating WP:TPO unless it involves talk-page vandalism, and in fact violating WP:TPO only escalates problems (rather than resolving them). If you don't like a conversation on someone else's talk page, either respond further, or just abandon it; don't remove or edit other users' posts on a talk page other than your own. Softlavender (talk) 07:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• Based on contributions by the IP, such as here, and edit history [23], this IP is indeed a "disruption only" account and should be blocked. In addition, their behavior (quickly coming with complaints to ANI) indicates a potential WP:SOCK problem. My very best wishes (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The problematic edit directed at IH was here: it appears to be casting vague WP:ASPERSIONS -- "...Your accusatory and adversarial tone is not appreciated. Your apparent emotional involvement with this issue, to the point of stalking my conversation with this other person, raises my suspicions that your true motives are not really all about keeping that article neutral and not biased as you claim." This seems to be a result of edit warring: [24] [25] [26] GAB^Hello! 19:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

My edit "...Your accusatory and adversarial tone is not appreciated. Your apparent emotional involvement with this issue, to the point of stalking my conversation with this other person, raises my suspicions that your true motives are not really all about keeping that article neutral and not biased as you claim." was not in response to an edit warning, but in response to [27]. User GAB, can you specify which part of my original statement constitutes WP:ASPERSIONS ? 96.24.75.223 (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

You do not look like a new user. Did you edit from other account(s)? My very best wishes (talk) 22:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

"An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence." The comment hints that IH has an ulterior motive in the article and is trying to slant it away from neutrality. Yes, I meant to write "edit-warring" -- i.e., this has arisen from a dispute over wording on the Sabra article in relation to BSM. MVBW: I don't want to cry "sock" at once, and I don't really want to get into that. GAB^Hello! 22:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

User "My very best wishes", can you specify how my edits fall under the definition of disruptive editing as defined at [28] ? Are you saying that my edits also fall under WP:SOCK, or just that my complaint to the ANI falls under WP:SOCK ? 96.24.75.223 (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I do not really know if WP:SOCK was relevant. That's why I asked you a simple question: did you previously edit from other accounts? And what is your answer? My very best wishes (talk) 22:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• Irina Harpy was wrong in removing the IP's comment from Euphoria's talk page. Don't do that again, please. Also, the IP was making a blatantly non-neutral edit when they did this (and the ones before, obviously), and then continue by harassing someone by means of a false harassment charge on ANI, taking up more bytes than they ever contributed to the project--at least from this IP. Yes, it's odd how a new IP editor can be so familiar with Wikipedia. What's clear is that they brought their agenda to the table, and what's also clear is that we need to protect our bona fide editors from such harassment. Block. Drmies (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I do (grudgingly) accept that I overstepped the line between distinguishing between trolling and TPO, for which I apologise. I'll certainly make a concerted effort to not jump the gun in future. Levity and ego aside, I realise that I made a bad call. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, thank you. Note that my comments were made also to ensure the viewer back home that we are fair and balanced here at ANI, and with my apologies: I am sorry that this abuser put you through the wringer. Drmies (talk) 00:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deforestation in India

Deforestation in India was a redirect to Forestry in India and as per request made at WikiProject India, Requested articles on 20th August, 2015 I started the fresh article but unfortunately I forget to nominated the existing redirect under CSD G6 (or alternatives) and saved the article.

Recently, I noticed that the article was not listed under my contributed articles and I nominated it under CSD G6 after moving the article to Draft:Deforestation in India so that it can be moved back to the mainspace article once the existing one get deleted. The CSD was reviewed by Spinningspark and he declined it as per Declining speedy. Sorry, you don't get to delete articles just so you can get your name as author. Besides which the draft page you intend to move here has other, irrelevant drafts embedded in its history.

His decline reason was unclear including the views on the draft about its embedded history which has various alternative option to remove those "embedded history". For the same I left a message on his talk page but he have not yet answered even after his recent contributions shows that he is/was online.

We all on Wikipedia spend a lot of time in thinking the topic, deciding the contents, writing it and finding the reliable sources. But, such responses and that's from experienced editors is really discouraging. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Sanskari: Just an idea, and I don't want to poke in my nose unnecessarily, but why don't you move the article to a temporary title like India deforestation and then request a histmerge with the new redirect, Deforestation in India? It looks like the current article "Deforestation in India" was only a redirect before you expanded it.

(Also, now you have two articles: the draft and the mainspace article. You may want to ask for a histmerge for these, too.) Epic Genius (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Spinningspark, Sanskari, and Epicgenius: At 04:05, 29 September 2015 Sanskari tagged Draft:Deforestation in India to be speedy-deleted.

  At 04:10, 29 September 2015‎ Sanskari using {{histmerge}} asked for Deforestation in India to be history-merged to India deforestation.

  At 05:35, 29 September 2015‎, Anthony Appleyard obeyed this, but history-merged India deforestation to Deforestation in India, as "Deforestation in India" seemed to be a better title.

  At 08:40, 29 September 2015 CambridgeBayWeather deleted page Draft:Deforestation in India. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• It seems that Draft:Deforestation in India (edit 14:45, 20 August 2015 (apparent cut-and-paste point) and all edits before) should be history-merged to Deforestation in India. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • That seems like a good idea. Thanks, Anthony. Epic Genius (talk) 01:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
    •  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

User:87.6.191.219 disruptive editing (Italian names)

• 87.6.191.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 87.1.112.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 87.1.25.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User 87.6.191.219 (dynamic IP, previously he was 87.1.112.159 and 87.1.25.216) is keeping vandalizing pages with Italian names: he is an Italian (he wrote "torna a fare i compiti..." which means "return to do your homework..." in Italian) and he changes the correct IPA pronounciation of Italian names making it uncorrect.
A few examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cesare_Prandelli&diff=prev&oldid=683030468 (the symbol "ː" was added according to Help:IPA for Italian); https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gigliola_Cinquetti&diff=prev&oldid=683321479 (the symbol "ˑ" is wrong, and yet he says to the Registered User who corrected it "return to do your homework..."); https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Giosu%C3%A8_Carducci&diff=prev&oldid=683321843 (here he reverted an edit I had done without changing any IPA or Italian name, but just because "I" did that edit, the same "I" who had made another edit he did not like about Cesare Beccaria).
His IP is from Southern Italy, and he is behaving exactly like a virtual "Boss" who says: "These pages are MY STUFF ("Cosa Nostra") and nobody can touch them!"; this is going on since months, because each time someone edits one of "his" pages, pages he edited for example in MAY, he reverts the edit just after a few hours, according to his own and uncorrect way to pronunce Italian.
I am asking you Administrators to make him stop, blocking his IP (or IP range) or sending him a message to his current IP, even if I do not think that he would listen to anyone and eventually he will have to be blocked.
Now I am going to rollback all of his disruptive edits once again, please act as soon as possible, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.6.76 (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

the real vandal is the guy above (who ignore, among other things, what is syntactic gemination): I had to correct all his crape. He's also a racist, as you can see, and changes IP at every edit because of his bad faith! Please contact an user acquainted with italian language so that he will judge the whole thing. --87.6.191.219 (talk) 17:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Everyone, just watch these 2 last edits of mine (the vandal's rollbacking) and tell me that I am the one who is doing wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agostino_Masucci&type=revision&diff=683334327&oldid=683328655 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Claudio&type=revision&diff=683334338&oldid=683326733
I did not revert correct (rare) edits like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Matteo_Salvini&diff=prev&oldid=683322523
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.41.17 (talk) 17:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

He changed IP address again! However, in standard italian it's [matˈtɛo] and not [maˈteo] (a dialectal and incorrect form). As for "Agostino", it's [aɡoˈstiːno] in isolation but [aɡoˈstiˑno] in a compound. --87.6.191.219 (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I notified User:87.6.191.219 that they were mentioned here. If you want to correct the situation, it would be a good idea for you to create an account. One IP-hopper ( User:151.20.6.76 ) doing mass rollbacks of another IP-hopper is unlikely to win sympathy for either side. You could post at some relevant WikiProject to get advice on which pronunciation is more likely to be correct. EdJohnston (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The above IP's are presenting personal opinions, not sources. Generally speaking, what reliable sources are used to validate the IPA's used in Wikipedia articles? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Sources are this and this. Also you are free to contact italian users who used to edit subjets like that. --87.6.191.219 (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Mr. 87.6.191.219
1st: I did not contest the edit about Matteo Salvini, I said it was correct (however, speaks about dialect the one who speaks it as mother language).
2nd: Agostino a compound? Of what? Ago and Stino? And even if it was, THIS ˌ is the seconday accent used for the first element of a compound, NOT THIS ˑ which has nothing to do with stress.
Return to do your homework, AKA "study". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.48.15 (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

What sources can you link to which define the correct IPA pronunciation? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Nope! Compound is clearly Agostino+Masucci! But this is a minor concern, while the most important thing is, again syntactic gemination and also open and closed vowels. Check a dictionary. --87.6.191.219 (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Quote: "Nope! Compound is clearly Agostino+Masucci!" FACEPALM
Baseball_Bugs: Are we talking about symbols such as ː ˈ ˑ ˌ ect? See: Help:IPA for Italian will you!
Have to go. See us tomorrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.62.87 (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

We are especially talking about open and closed vowels and syntactic gemination, as I said. And relax. --87.6.191.219 (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm talking about sourcing for IPA stuff. "See a dictionary" is not a source. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Repeat: Help:IPA for Italian >>> Suprasegmentals (ˈ ˌ ː and NO ˑ) I hope it is a source for you.
Well, I suppose we can close here. I was interested in writing correct information, so all wrong edits made by "Don 87" just have to stay reverted and I shall come back here only if he continues restoring them (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Claudio&diff=prev&oldid=683357188), while if I have done any uncorrect edit I will not insist in making them, obviously. We must understand that IP is from one of the most backward regions in Italy, it is not his fault, both for his lack of knowledge and for his bossy behaviour, he was grown up like that amid people grown up like that, we can just hope he has learnt something from this, both new notions and a little humbleness. I suggest someone of you keeps an eye on him for a while, you never know... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.121.170 (talk) 09:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Reign it in a little, mate. Doing the patronizing routine in this kind of venue is rarely a good move even if the issue is much more clear-cut. Humbleness, eh?-- Elmidae (talk) 09:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Mmm... I have also tried with Google Translate, but... That was not useful at all, either... :-( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.81.1 (talk) 10:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

'Rowspan' vandal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 2601:82:100:5ABF:20D:93FF:FE8B:B253 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I'm reporting the above IP for disruptive editing. After repeated warnings (see: Talk page), and repeated reversions by myself and others, this IP has continued to add 'rowspan' elements to WP:FILMOGRAPHY tables at various BLP's. (There's a whole background on this that no one at ANI probably wants to hear the details about – suffice it to say that use of 'rowspan' in Filmography tables is controversial...)

Now, why am I bringing this to ANI, rather than WP:AIV? Because I also suspect that this IP is the same as IP 73.29.184.78 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) that recently got blocked by Spencer for exactly the same offense. And same MO – multiple warnings about 'rowspan' use, with no communication from IP about it. (So why am I here rather than WP:SPI – because I know SPI can't do much about IP's...)

Anyway, so ANI is where I brought this – I'm requesting a block of this (new) IP for disruptive editing. TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Obviously this kind of edit isn't a blockable situation if it doesn't go against consensus; it's not blatant vandalism or otherwise fundamentally problematic. Looking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, I get the impression that there's an exception for first-column years, i.e. this edit is fine, and I don't see edits that add rowspan elsewhere in the tables. Can you show me edits by this address that do involve adding it elsewhere, or otherwise demonstrate some sort of policy violation or demonstrate intentional going against consensus? I don't think any sanctions are appropriate unless you can show some of those. Nyttend (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, there this one: diff – it's subtle, and you have to go down a ways, but they 'rowspanned' "Television movie" in the fourth column. There are some other ones like that in the most recent batch of edits (e.g. this diff – same thing: 'rowspaning' "Television movie"; and they did the very same thing in the Lauren Holly diff you provided above)... Anyway, you're right, Nyttend that there's probably sort of a "truce" on 'rowspanning' the 'Year' column (provided it's the first column in the 'Filmography' table). But my wider concern in this instance is that, 1) the IP has continued to use 'rowspan' in the 'Year' column and elsewhere after being both warned and reverted doing that, and 2) that it looks to me to be very likely Block evasion by IP 73.29.184.78 after their very long block for the very same infractions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the diffs; I'll block momentarily. Unless there are other, clearer, problems, I'm just not willing to block for what's at best ambiguous. And thanks for the pointer on the diff I linked; I completely missed the Television movie part. Nyttend (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Oshwah

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

While I applaud Oshwah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in their quest to pad out their edit count by mindlessly clicking buttons on Huggle, I (and other readers of the encyclopedia, I believe) would appreciate it if they would spend five seconds reading the content they're reverting before clicking that shiny "revert" button, as off-wiki links to commercial retailers' samples (several of which are deadlinks due to Barnes & Nobles redoing their site) are not an acceptable method of demonstrating the sounds of the Fairlight CMI - no matter how uncivil the edit summaries may be (apologies for the first couple, I thought I was dealing with Cluebot). Now, I will readily admit I haven't been keeping a close eye on the evolving of Wikipedia policies - if policy has changed in this regard, let me know and I will be only too happy to add links to photography/travel book previews on Amazon to better illustrate the landscape of various cities and villages, or Youtube trailers to highlight the techniques of various actors. Jframda (talk) 13:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

You are required to notify anyone who you mention on AN/I, which I have done. Amaury (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Beat me to it. Thanks! Jframda (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

In any case, I don't have any clue what the article in question talks about, but as two editors have both challenged you on your removal of content, it is important to follow the bold, revert, discuss cycle to reach a consensus. You have not done so and instead have engaged in edit warring. Your summary comments were also uncivil and edged dangerously close to being personal attacks; however, I'm glad you realized your mistake there. (Although ClueBot has feelings, too, and you shouldn't call them names.) Please stop edit warring and discuss why you believe what you removed shouldn't be there on the article's talk page. Amaury (talk) 13:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Boomerang strikes. OP blocked for 24 hours for edit warring on Fairlight CMI.  Philg88 ^♦talk 14:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi everyone! I was notified on my talk page that this ANI was created - thank you for doing that, Amaury :-). I just want to weigh in on this discussion (even though this matter looks to be resolved), so we can (hopefully) close the discussion off completely and Jframda can move on from this positively and look back on this as a good learning experience. The first reversion that I made to Jframda's edit on Fairlight CMI was due to the lack of an edit summary explaining the removal of the content. I also noticed that other editors were challenging Jframda's removal and that no discussion was started on the article's talk page. My last reversion here expressed my concerns (edit warring and without a talk page discussion).

Jframda - Please know that meaningful edit summaries are very important when making contributions to Wikipedia. Leaving uncivil edit summaries, such as those made recently by you, will only make things worse; other editors read these edit summaries and gain a perception of the situation using them. This situation could have been avoided if you had just explained your reasoning behind your removal of content, and started a discussion on the article's talk page when politely asked by multiple editors to do so. Please also know that I am 100% open and willing to discuss any concerns or disagreements on my talk page; you didn't need to create an ANI thread here. Had you left a message on my talk page instead, I would have happily assisted you and worked with you to make sure that the article was within Wikipedia's policies. Mistakes do happen, and I am not perfect :-) -- Please feel free to reach out to me on my talk page if you want to discuss this matter further. I'm also more than willing to assist you with the article and the talk page discussion. Wikipedia is about collaboration and community; instead of starting edit wars and making edits alone, let's make it better together.

Unless anybody has additional concerns that have not already been mentioned, I think we can resolve this thread. I'll let someone uninvolved do that. Happy editing, everyone! ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Update: Jframda's block has been changed to an indefinite block ({{checkuserblock-account}}). This thread can definitely be closed now. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I am re-opening this discussion to add this diff to it, for the record. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Jugdev reverting all contributions and blanking Talk page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Jugdev is acting as though he owns Programmatic media. I have tried to improve the article in a variety of ways, from changing the lead to respect WP:REFERS (my edit; his revert), to copyediting to improve wording, to minor punctuation corrections, to removing overlinking, and Jugdev has systematically reverted every change to return the article to the form it was in before I started contributing (diff showing no change).

I have engaged Jugdev on his Talk page as well as on Talk:Programmatic media, with both substantive and procedural comments (including links to WP policies). He systematically replies that he is right and ignores my suggestions. On Talk:Programmatic media, he has now blanked the page three times. Time 1, Time 2, Time 3 (he characterized the third blanking as "removing vandalism").

He has also made 241 redirects to the Programmatic media page (SEO?), which seems inappropriate; again, he ignores my comment with "The redirects are relevant and within guidelines."

If you look at his Talk page, you'll see that this is a pattern of behavior, and that he has previously been blocked for similar behavior on other pages. --Macrakis (talk) 18:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The blanking of the article talk page is the issue that is most clearly within the scope of this noticeboard; I don't know how to call that anything but willful disruption of the discussion. The ownership issues with the article are also problematic. Normally that would get labelled a content dispute—but the first remedy for that is discussion on the article talk page, and how can you do that when the article talk page is blanked by the other party?

I've restored the talk page content and cautioned the user that removing it is disruptive. I've also added the article to my watchlist to see how the user proceeds. It's been over an hour since his last edit, so I'm reluctant to act until I see how he reacts to this thread and my comment. —C.Fred (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

C.Fred, Seems like you and I edit conflicted, I got the article talk page and you got to post on the user talk page, and have said what I wanted to over here. —SpacemanSpiff 18:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The page indeed needs work and it would be helpful if Jugdev were to let other editors take a decent crack at it - JohnInDC (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Jugdev has now reverted changes made by three (four?) separate editors without meaningful discussion and in the face of a 3RR warning. JohnInDC (talk) 20:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

He's been blocked for 48 hours. I have a feeling that we're going to be back here in a couple days. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suspicion of multiple IPs operating on behalf of blocked IP

• 86.5.176.46 (talk · contribs)
• 82.25.11.240 (talk · contribs)

I admit to not knowing whether an SPI has already run regarding this user, nor if they're even opened for disruptive IPs. I came across the 82 IP some weeks ago, and see that they've continued unabated with hundreds of unsourced edits since being warned in August. That's often a tell for a user who's been through this before, and chooses to sidestep blocks and just keep going. Looking at the edit patterns, I think this is the same user who was blocked for a year, and suspect they've used several or many other IPs in these ranges. More eyes would be appreciated. Thanks, 73.159.24.89 (talk) 01:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I haven't done anything why did I get a message saying I have — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.11.240 (talk) 01:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Merging this question into the related thread. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Ponyo, you're being pinged here. (By me.) Drmies (talk) 01:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you, Drmies. My handiwork--shrewd on finding these users, not always sharp on noticeboard procedures. Cheers from 99, 73.159.24.89 (talk) 01:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• • No, you're fine--I just saw that Ponyo had blocked and smelled previous history. Thanks again for helping to keep the place clean; Jimbo should put you on payroll. Or pay you for a portrait--one not painted with your John Hancock, of course.

    OK, I blocked for obvious block evasion and otherwise problematic edits--Ponyo, surely there's an SPI or some other report here, no? Drmies (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The 86.5 IP has popped up repeatedly at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harry (singer)/Archive.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I've expressed to Drmies[29], that there probably needs to be some more WP:DIFFs sufficient to justify a WP:SPI before this type of thing gets escalated or actioned in the future. As noted to Drmies, I can't see why an 82.24/14 (NTL/Nottingham) cable-modem editing mostly Nottingham-ish articles would have much to do with an editor from an 86.5/16 block. I hope that diffs can be provided to allow others to follow along. —Sladen (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Opposing editors refuse to WP:dropthestick over Gun show loophole title NPOV tag

The recent POV issue began here [30], about 24-48 hrs after the GA review began after 4 months of waiting, if I'm not mistaken (end of Aug beginning of Sept). Godsy is the one that tagged the article after QuilaBird brought the issue to the TP. Mudwater had stated/argued repeatedly that the title needs to be changed to "Background checks for firearm sales in the United States". The title was temporarily changed to "Gun show loophole controversy", but reverted after later discussion. About the time I obtained photos for the article, and there was a consensus on which image to use, the article was submitted for GA review. Zwerg Nase and Winner 42 responded to our GA request. Here is the current state [31]. There was an impartial consensus to keep the original title (edit - consensus at NPOVN including two impartial comments on the article TP after the placement at NPOVN, then Markbassett commented there today, after it was "resolved" [32]. I mistakenly asked an involved editor to close ([33] Darknipples (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)) and they have changed their mind from (essentially) agreeing with the consensus, to saying the issue is not resolved. The issue has been brought up several time in the past year, especially by editor Mudwater. Each time the result was to keep the title as is. Other involved editors include @Etamni, Faceless Enemy, Godsy, Capitalismojo, and Altenmann:. I'm hoping someone can make sense of this and I'm not sure where else to go. Thanks for the help. Darknipples (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC) I seem to have forgotten a few editors QuilaBird & Scourge of Trumpton...Darknipples (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC) (Recent edit [34]) Darknipples

I am pinging DES and Markbassett from NPOVN just in case. Darknipples Darknipples (talk) 21:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, a consensus has never been reached on keeping the article title "Gun show loophole". A number of editors, myself included, feel quite strongly that the title of the article violates WP:NPOV, and that the article should be renamed per WP:NDESC. Others disagree. But the question of the article title keeps being brought up by different editors, not the same ones, which is an indication that there's a genuine issue here. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 21:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Mudwater I was referring to the multiple impartial consensus' with regard to the current and previous discussions, RFC's, Name Change Request's, and Move Requests, etc..etc.... Darknipples (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

If I were to close that discussion, it would read:

While arguments can be made for both sides, in the end, policy dictates. First we look at the controlling policy on titles, WP:TITLE, which clearly states "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources." Under this rule, the current title seems to be unquestionably the proper title. As we dig close into the policy at section WP:NPOVNAME, we see "When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria). Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. the Boston Massacre or the Teapot Dome scandal).". There are exceptions for trendy names or colloquialisms, but this wouldn't fall under that. If we have two equally common names to choose from, then we would choose the most neutral but we do not here. As it has been pointed out, we have to follow reliable sources and in effect, they choose the name for us, so while there is a good argument that "loophole" is an inaccurate description of the issue, "loophole" is still what the sources use. Any discrepancy in the neutrality of the title can be cleared up within the article, assuming there are reliable sources that are supporting those claims. With all this in mind, it seems very clear that while there are varying opinions, policy clearly dictates that the neutrality of the title isn't at stake as choosing any other title would instead by violating WP:TITLE by not using the common name. As such, the NPOV tag should be removed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

And please note that WP:TITLE takes precedence over WP:NPOV here since it covers both concepts. If you read NPOV, it flatly says "See article titling policy for more on choosing an appropriate title for an article." We aren't here to right wrongs or be politically correct. The media uses "loophole", so we do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Would it be prudent to involve/ping related WikiProject editors (Firearms, Law, and Politics/American)? Darknipples (talk) 21:46, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I suppose if a neutral notice was given, but as I said above, policy seems to be very clear on this so I'm not sure how more people arguing is necessarily better, as there has been lots of discussion already. My close above was after reading through it and weighing it against the actual policy that guides us here. Of course, I'm open to counterviews, but it seems obvious in this case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm not sure what to expect, as I've never dealt with this kind of thing before on my own. Will an administrator close this on the article's TP when this discussion is finished, or should I ask someone like yourself to do it? I don't know if I'm allowed to close it or not since I'm an "involved editor". Sorry for all the questions, you've been most helpful. Darknipples (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: As you probably know, gun law in the U.S. is a highly controversial and polarizing topic. Pro-gun-control and pro-gun-rights advocates often hold strongly opposing views on this topic. Are you aware that the term "gun show loophole" is often used by pro-gun-control advocates, but almost never used by pro-gun-rights advocates? The latter tend to think that the term is very misleading, and have written many times about how, in their view, "there is no gun show loophole". Therefore the term, while often used, is biased towards one side of the argument. So, it's the "common name" only for one half of the people debating the issue. Know what I mean? — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'm ex-military, from a military family, had an FFL, CTC for years, etc., etc. I'm familiar with the politics, but what I do is set aside my own beliefs and focus on policy. The title should use "loophole" because policy says it should, but to keep it neutral, it makes sense to discuss how it very often/never/always/whatever really is/isn't a loophole, and how that is the term that is most often used to describe it only/sometimes/etc. I'm betting there are plenty of sources for this, and a short blurb in the lede plus a paragraph down lower should be more than sufficient to offset any concern about NPOV. What is at stake is policy, and policy says that most of the time, you use a non-neutral title if that is what the sources use. This situation doesn't fit into any listed exception, and WP:TITLE is the primary policy, everything else takes a back seat to it. When we use the word "terrorist" or dozens of other terms, there is the issue of bias as well, but in all cases, our job isn't to correct the sources or take sides, it is to document them. That is why we follow their usage, even if we don't like it personally. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: I'm in favor of passing a new federal law requiring background checks for all private firearm sales. So, I'm not taking this personally. I just think you're off-base on what the policy is here. NPOV is extremely important. Just because a lot of people use a term, doesn't mean it should be the title of an article, especially when the term is as biased as this one. As far as "terrorism", I haven't done an exhaustive search, but so far I'm definitely not seeing it. For example, Palestinian terrorism is a redirect to Palestinian political violence. Analogously, "Gun show loophole" should be a redirect to "Background checks for firearms sales in the United States", or something along those lines. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Is Talk:Gun_show_loophole/Archive_3#Requested_move_29_January_2015 the last requested move discussion? NE Ent 23:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• I think WP:NPOV is important also, but as I've already stated, NPOV clearly says to refer to WP:TITLE when it comes to titles. The issue of POV is covered in WP:TITLE quite deeply, including listing exceptions. This is why, again, I say that WP:TITLE trumps WP:NPOV here, the policies themselves say so. If you can't argue it based on WP:TITLE's wording, then there is no argument. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

As HighInBC points out, "This is a content dispute pure and simple. ... Administrators cannot solve content disputes" Someone should wrap this in a close tag and request the parties start a move request if last January's is the most recent. NE Ent 23:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ent and NE Ent:..."HighInBC" is seems to be referring to "an image" or something like that... [35]. Not GSL's TP discussions or ARTICLE EDITS... I think the diff you supplied may be unrelated...? Darknipples Darknipples (talk) 07:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes that quote seems out of context, I never commented on this issue. HighInBC 15:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@NE Ent: As far as actual requested moves, I could be wrong but I believe that's the only one. But there have been a number of other, later discussions about the article title, on the article talk page and also in other forums such as this one. @Dennis Brown: I appreciate that you're trying to apply Wikipedia policy to this question, but I think that preserving WP:NPOV is more important than the exact wording of WP:TITLE. Common sense should prevail over Wikilawyering. But I acknowledge that there's significant disagreement about what's common sense here. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@NE Ent: January isn't the most recent according to the logs. April of this year just before we requested the GA review [36] as far as "recent" (Darknipples (talk) 22:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)), with EXCEPTION to the current discussion, as far as I understand THE TITLE is concerned. Darknipples (talk) 07:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm commenting as an uninvolved party and experienced admin, I've never edited in or around that article. I think to call my direct quoting of a primary policy "Wikilawyering" is a uncivil. Someone came for unbiased interpretation of policy and got it. You appear to be saying NPOV is more important because YOU think it is. I'm saying that very policy defers to TITLE clearly and without question, in the very wording of the policy. You are an interested party, I'm not. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: You said, "If you can't argue it based on WP:TITLE's wording, then there is no argument." I think that's going too far, and it strikes me as being in the general direction of Wikilawyering. But, I would say it's not a full-fledged case. If that sounds like I'm only half-way apologizing, it should. But, you're right that I'm an interested party and you're not. I do appreciate your taking the time to contribute to the resolution of this dispute, so, thanks for that. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I suspect (without, honestly, looking in great detail) there have been too many conversations. There's this fantasy if we all discuss enough we'll come to a point we all agree with ... the other 99% of the time if you good back and forth on an opinion more than maybe three times you're spinning your wheels, and it's best to get help before tempers start to flare. Help = more people. I think this is one of those times where WP:Process is important and the burden would be one the folks desiring a move to file another move request, with focus on what has changed since the January one. Then everyone votes, an uninvolved editor closes it, everyone moves one while respecting the other point of view. NE Ent 01:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• To echo Ent comment and good judgement, admin (including myself) don't settle content issues. My quasi close comment and comments since were to point to the right policy and offer an opinion about policy, not a judgement. I stayed off that page on purpose, but that is where it should be settled. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Current discussion between Mudwater and myself on the GSL article's TP [37]. Darknipples (talk) 03:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC) FYI I'm referring to this (edit) particular "suggestion" from Mudwater " P.S. I'd be okay with "Gun show loophole" being a redirect to "Background checks for firearm sales in the United States". — Mudwater (Talk) 20:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)"(/edit) . (edit) AND previously to the one in charge of THE GA REVIEW Zwerg Nase [38](recent edit) (talk) 09:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC) , among other times I do not feel need mention at this point. Darknipples (talk) 03:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC) I suppose this [39] is relevant in a certain regard... Darknipples (talk) 04:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC). So Mudwater and (QuilaBird, the one that hasn't said a "anything new" (see TP) about the matter in almost two weeks), are reason enough to ignore WP:POLICY?. Nevermind...I digress. Mudwater and I simply don't agree. -- Darknipples (talk) 04:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC) I suppose Notifying (ping) Fuhghettaboutit and Bus stop is in order now...Darknipples (talk) 04:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC) To reiterate, unless GSL's title changes to "Background checks for firearm sales in the United States" - Mudwater and "future editors" will continue to tag according to "said WP guidelines/rules/???" Darknipples (talk) (recent edit - [40] - Darknipples (talk) 09:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)) I forgot to ping Checkingfax from my TeaHouse edit. Darknipples (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• I have never edited the GSL article. I was alerted to the debate by the Teahouse thread linked above, and posted on the notice board and IIRC on the article talk page, once each. While I came to them independently, my view is pretty much the same as the one expressed by Dennis Brown, above -- the only policy based outcome is to use the common name, which is the current name. I reviewed the article at the time of the Teahouse thread not long ago. At that time it included a well-sourced discussion of the controversy over the terminology as well as the controversy over the policy issue. It also included sourced statements showing that many of the "pro-gun-rights" did use the "loophole" term, even as they protested that it was misleading or biased. If those sources are accurate, it is NOT correct that this term is used only by one side of the controversy. Rather it is frequently used, albeit sometimes under protest, by people on both sides, and overwhelmingly by the (at least ostensibly) neutral media. Hence IMO it is the common name for this topic and should be used as such. I have seen no consensus to move this article, and no policy=based reason to retain a POV tag on it, as the article itself clearly explains the various points of viw and who holds them. DES ^(talk) 05:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Now that I look at the records, I never actually asked Etamni "to close" the discussion [41], just asked if they had any experience etc... Darknipples (talk) 07:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Did someone say my name? As I noted at the relevant talk page, our policy, WP:TITLE has a specific section, at shortcut WP:NDESC which explicitly states, In some cases a descriptive phrase (such as Restoration of the Everglades) is best as the title. These are often invented specifically for articles, and should reflect a neutral point of view, rather than suggesting any editor's opinions. (Emphasis mine, internal link omitted.) It would appear that this policy was specifically written for circumstances, such as this one, where the most common name is problematic. I also note that WP:TITLECHANGES is contradictory, in that it suggests not changing a name in this circumstance. I believe that the contradictory nature of these two policies means that we need to use common sense to resolve this issue. In this case, the article is about the fact that private sales of firearms, particularly at gun shows, do not require background checks in the majority of states. This is a political issue, with those favoring more controls on firearms ownership calling it a "loophole," while those who are against expanded laws finding the term "loophole" offensive because the term is pejorative and suggests that people are somehow getting around a law that was intended to apply to them, when, in this case, the legislative history suggests that such an intent was never part of the laws that were established to require licensed firearms dealers to conduct background checks; indeed, private parties are prohibited from accessing the system. Thus the term "loophole" is not factually correct. There is no neutral alternative term used consistently through the RS. In the discussion, several terms were suggested, but none found consensus. One of the suggested terms was Background checks for firearm sales in the United States but this was rejected. I believe that it is not a good title because it does not represent the subject of the article, which is the fact that certain sales are not subject to background checks. Another suggested term, and one that I supported, was Private party exemption but this was also rejected, apparently due to the lack of RS to support it (although I believe that WP:NDESC would allow it). Just during the past year, this issue has been raised several times, ad nauseam. I give credit to the editors involved for not engaging in an edit war within the article itself, but even the repeated discussions on the talk page are disruptive, so the issue needs to be put to bed. Closing the discussion with no consensus will simply lead to the same issue being raised again, perhaps by someone unfamiliar with the prior discussions (as has also happened before), and then the issues will be rehashed by the same parties again, who, understandably, don't want their opinions left out of the discussion. So either a title needs to be agreed upon that will satisfy everyone, or a decision needs to be made that the current title will stay in place, with a prohibition on raising the issue again for some set period of time, unless there is clear evidence that consensus has changed. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  08:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, that wasn't intended to be a wall of text. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  08:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Etamni please re-read WP:NDESC. Specifically the second paragraph, which reads..."However, non-neutral but common names (see preceding subsection) may be used within a descriptive title. Even descriptive titles should be based on sources, and may therefore incorporate names and terms that are commonly used by sources. (Example: Since "Boston Massacre" is an acceptable title on its own, the descriptive title "Political impact of the Boston Massacre" would also be acceptable.)" You, yourself stated on the TALK PAGE (just before changing your mind, oddly enough) "I'm fine with dropping this. I think a better summary of the discussion is that there is no consensus on a specific better name, even where it may be apparent that the current name is not perfect. I would suggest that, as we occasionally see on other articles, the talk page needs an advisory message box at the top with links to the discussion(s) in the archives. This may help prevent such a drawn-out discussion from being restarted, again, in the future. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 15:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)". Did someone else talk you into changing your mind? Also, to be clear I never "asked you to summarize the discussion" or anyone else for that matter. Darknipples (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

_{(late reply)>} Nobody said anything to me other than what was posted in the public comments, which have not been removed. I found additional information (in the form of a policy that had not already been discussed). To be 100% clear, I am fine with dropping the entire thing, and I am fine with changing the name. What I am not fine with is having the issue raised over and over again. That is disruptive. That disruption interferes with ongoing improvements to the encyclopedia. I have made suggestions that I think are in the best interest of the encyclopedia, but am fine with whatever consensus emerges. I also understand that you (DN) do not consider your previous question to me to have been an invitation to summarize the discussion, and hope you understand how the question might have been interpreted as such a request (and I don't see how it matters now, anyway). Finally, (everyone) PLEASE stop pinging me for issues related to this discussion. I don't need my phone beeping while I am working, just to see that there is a new message that might interest me on Wikipedia. There is a real-life reason I have listed my status on my user page as attempting to take a WikiBreak of indeterminate length. I know where this page is and can look at it when I have time. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  00:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC) Thanks for the response Etamni (no ping) Darknipples (talk) 03:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Can someone just host an RFC on "what should the article be titled" and let's move on? Make subheadings with different options and a single one-section discussion area (and keep discussion contained there). The talk page could use some outside viewers. Disagreeing with an article title isn't a conduct issue per se. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 13:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

  We posted this issue at NPOVN two weeks ago and all the impartial comments were a consensus to keep the original title. Opposing editors (mostly UN-impartial) are seeking a LOOPHOLE in Policy over a title that has the word LOOPHOLE in it. Irony abounds...And that's why it's here now. I think WP:POLICY is clear, as @Dennis Brown: put it in the beginning. Darknipples (talk) 21:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

  Well, I'd say the noticeboard is different than a formal RFC but didn't this section have only three commenters? You may be right but the argument is whether there's been a clear consensus and it seems like each discussion has basically five or six editors arguing over each other again and again. Either way, this is subject to discretionary sanctions so is that what you're suggesting? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

  Ricky81682 For NPOVN, one comment, originally. During that time we had only a few other impartial commenters, all in favor of keeping the title as is on the article TP. After I had already closed ("resolved") at NPOVN (only one comment at the time after about 2 weeks), Markbassett recently stated that "The WP:NPOV concerns seem reasonable, as a well-known partisan label and POV concern of editors here. Since this is neutrality board, and since NPOV is a core item, I will suggest the NPOV section WP:POVNAMING is the one to apply, not the naming convention article of WP:POVNAME." and recently that the issue is "Doing better thru the article TALK pages". So, in answer to your question, I do feel sanctions may indeed be necessary, for the sake of the article. I sincerely do not wish Mudwater any ill-will, and it's in no way personal, but I feel they have essentially forced the issue to this point. Darknipples (talk) 01:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Current GSL TP discussion between Mudwater and myself. [42]. Darknipples (talk) 21:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, I believe Mudwater's behavior to be reminiscent of, if not blatantly in line with, WP:CRUSH. Darknipples (talk) 23:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)...Now that I think of it, it is also WP:CHERRYPICKING with regard to holding WP:NDESC as a priority over WP:TITLE policy, WP:NOCONSENSUS, and WP:CONEXCEPT. Especially after the recent impartial consensus and past RFC's. I'd also like to note I was not ALONE in my arguments to retain the original title on the GSL talk page.

• Faceless Enemy I'm getting a strong sense of deja vu... We've debated all of this before (see the TP archives), and even though I didn't like the answer I got then, there did seem to be a consensus not to consolidate / rename the pages involved. Faceless Enemy (talk) 11:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
• Capitalismojo WP:COMMONNAME Lets just use the common name. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
• Altenmann re: "It can't be a loophole if that's the system operating as intended." and "No background checks on private sales is the current intended policy". -- absence of policy is not a policy. The intent of the policy was to prevent firearms from reaching bad hands, and not making life of firearms businesses harder. Therefore it is called "loophole": something that is not covered by a policy of background checking. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

My main issue with doing, yet another RFC, other than the fact that we just had an impartial consensus on NPOVN, and that we are in the middle of a GA review which we waited 4 months for, is that Mudwater's behavior is such that they will continue WP:STICK and WP:CRUSH. Darknipples (talk) 23:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Also see WP:TITLECHANGES "Changing one controversial title to another without a discussion that leads to consensus is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. Consensus among editors determines if there does exist a good reason to change the title. If it has never been stable, or it has been unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub." - "While titles for articles are subject to consensus, do not invent names or use extremely uncommon names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names." Darknipples (talk) 00:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I think Mudwater's conduct has been perfectly fine. They didn't revive the discussion, and as far as I know they haven't edit warred over it. You have both been admirably civil about your content disagreement. No need to accuse the other party of anything untoward over a content dispute. As Mudwater pointed out, this is a perennial discussion because the title is inherently loaded. It *is* the common name for the concept, but the loaded quality is going to raise eyebrows. Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

As you know, it was not my first choice. As Etamni recently stated here..."What I am not fine with is having the issue raised over and over again. That is disruptive. That disruption interferes with ongoing improvements to the encyclopedia." I realize that MW isn't the one that raised the issue or tagged the article this time, but they only just recently suggested re-tagging the article citing POV concerns over the title...

• "Well, there have been some interesting recent discussions about the title of the article, here, and also at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Opposing editors refuse to WP:dropthestick over Gun show loophole title NPOV tag. But I have to say, my views have not changed. I still think that the article name "Gun show loophole" violates the WP:NPOV policy, and that the article should be renamed per WP:NDESC, to "Background checks for firearm sales in the United States". But, at this point I'm not sure how to proceed. Someone could resubmit the article as a requested move -- there was one of those already, which can be reviewed at Talk:Gun show loophole/Archive 3#Requested move 29 January 2015. Or someone could put the POV tag back on the article -- but that was just taken off, after no one continued the discussion about why it should be left on. So, yeah. What next? Speaking for myself, I'm going to ponder this further. For the moment, I don't have anything further to add, either to this discussion or to the article itself. If and when I have something further to say, I'll post again." — Mudwater (Talk) 00:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

They have consistently held onto the WP:STICK despite every consensus (impartial or not) thus far, and WP:CRUSHed by telling anyone that might listen "Background checks for firearm sales in the United States" should be the title [43] since the article's creation. Darknipples (talk) 02:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Since this is the Administrators' Noticeboard for Incidents, and since Darknipples initiated this discussion and has posted a number of comments about my behavior as an editor, I decided to go back through the article talk page archives and find all the discussions about the title of the article. I found eight of them, of which I started exactly one. While I've been an active participant in a number of these discussions, I think it's fair to say that I don't have a habit of instigating them. Here's the list of the talk page sections, and who started them, when:

• Talk:Gun show loophole/Archive 1#POV-title -- Arthur Rubin -- 1 August 2014
• Talk:Gun show loophole/Archive 1#Pejorative -- Arthur Rubin -- 2 December 2014
• Talk:Gun show loophole/Archive 1#Train station loophole -- Mike Searson -- 15 January 2015
• Talk:Gun show loophole/Archive 2#"Gun show loophole": NPOV article title -- Lightbreather -- 15 January 2015 -- LB started a discussion of renaming the article back from "Gun show loophole controversy" to "Gun show loophole". This section apparently has my first post about the title of the article, suggesting it be renamed to "Background checks for firearms sales in the United States".
• Talk:Gun show loophole/Archive 3#RFC to rename article -- Mudwater -- 28 January 2015 -- I started an RFC suggesting the article be renamed to "Background checks for firearms sales in the United States".
• Talk:Gun show loophole/Archive 3#Requested move 29 January 2015 -- Faceless Enemy -- 29 January 2015
• Talk:Gun show loophole/Archive 7#Merger proposal to Universal background check (6 April 2015) -- Faceless Enemy -- 6 April 2015
• Talk:Gun show loophole#Title not consistent with Wikipedia, NPOV -- QuilaBird -- 27 August 2015

Also, I've made relatively few edits to the article itself. And as to the contents of my talk page posts, I invite uninvolved editors to read them for themselves and make up their own minds. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 02:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment I feel I've said my piece and made my point at this time. Mudwater deserves time to make their points, as I feel I have. I will reserve the right to respond to any further statements or questions as necessary (ping me). Darknipples (talk) 05:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Question/Comment I think Mudwater has a pending question. If there were a new RFC, would it be appropriate to do AT THIS TIME, as Mudwater has currently asked/suggested on the article talk page [44]? I'd like to reiterate that while I doubt the issue (NPOV title) can be (forever) resolved with another RFC over the GSL title, & despite WP:NPOV WP:POLICY WP:TITLE WP:NOCONSENSUS WP:COMMONNAME & WP:TITLECHANGES (IMO), I'm not against doing another one if that is what the WP:Administrators feel is necessary. Darknipples (talk) 00:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment FYI the GSL article review has been placed on hold [45] for 7 days, citing among other things, "Reviewing the title controversy, it is my understanding that the issue is still not fully resolved. However, as long as there is no edit-warring, I feel that debates don't stand in the way of this becoming a GA. The case would be different if the title would be a clear NPOV violation, which it is not IMO, referring to WP:POVNAME". Darknipples (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC) As far as WP:LISTEN, the continued discussion over the title, as opposed to taking WP policies at face-value, is a prime example of disruptive editing, IMO. Darknipples (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC) (RE:WP:LISTEN) "Sometimes, even when editors act in good faith, their contributions may continue to be disruptive and time wasting, for example, by continuing to say they don't understand what the problem is. Although editors should be encouraged to be bold and just do things if they think they're right, sometimes a lack of competence can get in the way. If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed." Darknipples (talk) 01:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment Commenting since I'm pinged here and discussed over my NPOVN participation: For neutrality question at NPOVN, the WP:NPOV seems the relevant article and section WP:POVNAMING seems the relevant part -- particularly how it differs from the WP:POVNAME content. That difference seems to be guidance that neutrality handling for the article can be done by highlighting the label controversy in due weight and so reconciling as best able all the ideals of NPOV, WEIGHT, and COMMONNAME. Alternative seems to be that POVNAME be the title of a redirect to article with a descriptive title. Since I've seen this topic in January, I added to please record whatever the resolution is into the TALK FAQ so it might come up less often and be handled in shorter time. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Quick block needed for persistent edit tester

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Special:Contributions/2602:306:25A5:89D9:8168:1DCE:9F97:F00A is adding the month and year to a dozen articles, with nothing about the date being relevant to the article. The guy is reverting me, too. He needs to be stopped. Binksternet (talk) 02:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Anon block applied.  Philg88 ^♦talk 09:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sting's sales figures doubled

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There's a new IP from Israel doing the same thing that we saw last year from three other IPs from Israel: doubling the Sting (musician) sales figures from 100 million to 200 million. The new IP is:

• 85.130.221.249 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

(Rodericksilly has been doing yeoman work to counter this guy, and he brought the situation to my attention.)

Last year the IPs were:

• 46.19.85.84 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 46.19.85.30 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • Blocked once by John
• 80.178.147.139 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • Blocked twice by John

Should we protect the Sting biography or block the recent IP? Binksternet (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

John just semi'ed the article for a month. Suggest blocking the IP for two weeks or so as well. Softlavender (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Sting is a hard-working bugger, so I'm more than happy that these unverified, anonymous edits are 100% correct. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New apparent SPI/COI editor misusing user talk page, no other recent edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I believe User:Byronmarchant has received more than one final warning on his user talk page regarding his misuse of that page. He has made few if any other productive edits, seems to have, based on his comments, a possible WP:COI regarding the work of Bruno Bauer, which he has apparently translated for publication, and is, so far as I can tell, pretty much exclusively using his user talk page to WP:SOAPBOX for his own personal opinions.His recent history, as per here, is pretty much exclusively to his user talk page, where he regularly belittles both other editors and in the case of Bart Ehrman published academics and experts in their fields, something the editor himself seems to believe he himself is, perhaps as per User:John Carter/Self-appointed prophet, As multiple editors have told him at this point, I believe his activity is counterproductive and that there is sufficient reason to believe there is good reason to believe, at this point, he is not here to build an encyclopedia. I request an administrator review the editor's activities and history and, if they so see fit, take the appropriate action. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Byron showed up here and in no time was describing wikipedia as a cult and declared their intention to "reveal fraud". I very much doubt this is a new user, I have no reason to think they are here to write an encyclopedia. Their few contribution have had to be reverted as being very much outside the scope of an encyclopedia.

The following quote sums up this users attitude clearly: "Wikipedia is a cult. Like other cults (Catholicism, Islam, Mormonism...) I will do what I can to destroy it/them, since cults are dangerous for the general welfare". I have no confidence that this person is here to contribute productively to our project.

Based on their stated goal of destroying our project I have indefinitely blocked the account to prevent... well the destruction of our project. As always I am open to community feedback on my actions. HighInBC 17:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Over the top admin conduct terrifying new users

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Look at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Apokryltaros/The Beast Legion. Is listing these kinds of pages for deletion and terrifying off users really the kind of conduct we expect from admins? Content creators should be left free to create content not attacked by admins who do nothing but post nasty messages threatening to destroy and delete their content just because they take a small break. Suggest a trouting at the very least. 166.170.44.22 (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

With edits like this, you're certainly the one to teach lessons, aren't you? Anyway, I have no idea what you mean by "new" user given the page in question was userified in 2012. LjL (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

How on earth does putting up for deletion a page that hasn't been touched by anyone in three years "terrifying" to new users? No one is going to take your complaint seriously if you engage in such hyperbole. Gamaliel (talk) 22:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm quoting the user himself. read the discussion. [46] And that prior edit wasn't me. ~~<~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.44.22 (talk) 22:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

unresolved

Isn't anyone concerned about users having to deal with their userpages being deleted from underneath them without warning? The user shouldn't have to monitor their articles in case someone deletes them years later. 166.176.59.12 (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, nothing on Wikipedia belongs to the user who wrote it, even user pages. It's always smart to keep a local copy, especially if it's something that hasn't been touched in years. That said, WP:UP#DELETE suggests bringing it up with the user first, so there should always be a warning (except in cases of copyright violations, etc.). clpo13_(talk) 23:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

precisely. No warning was given. Terrible admin actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.176.59.12 (talk) 00:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

third try

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Still, admins are expected to lead by example. Admins who violate policies like WP:BEFORE need to be challenged. I think it's worth asking questions here. We shouldn't have editors in fear that articles they created can get deleted just because they don't show up here for 20 or so months. That's a minor part of life. 166.176.58.105 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks NeilN--you just beat me to it. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP editor shoehorning images of marginal relevance to articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm bringing this here as 50.170.19.89 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears to be driven more by an agenda rather than any interest in improving Wikipedia, and would appreciate other input.

The IP has been adding images to multiple articles. While I understand that Wikipedia is not censored, these additions seem to be attempting to wedge in images of marginal encyclopedic value into multiple articles, their only common characteristic being toplessness. This seems to be more of someone attempting to push an agenda rather than adding meaningful images. For instance, these three images ([47], [48], [49]) do next to nothing towards illustrating the subject of the article.

I didn't touch the addition to the swimsuit article as that one appears to be genuinely relevant to the material it illustrates; and for now I've left the addition to the tattoo article, as I can see an argument for that one (although that article is so overloaded with images that a different discussion on pruning to the best quality and most illustrative images may be needed on that talk page). It's the overall behavior of the user that is of concern to me. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think a Suicide Girl opening a refrigerator is strictly necessary to understanding the topic. This user is obviously trying to be edgy. clpo13_(talk) 23:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I removed the addition to "Tattoo." Gratuitous and unnecessary with a misleading edit summary. Keegan (talk) 23:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Keegan, aren't you aware white people exist, too? /s clpo13_(talk) 23:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I know, I know... Keegan (talk) 23:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is censored in many ways and this is one of them: we do not condone the placing of images just to get a rise out of viewers--or for the editor to get a rise out themselves. I'm reminded of a dude who kept adding pictures of his own dick to our articles, just a week or two ago. If anyone doubts they're sticking in nekkid girls for kicks, well, I don't know how to finish that sentence. Blocked. Drmies (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Trigger-happy nominations By Dharmadhyaksha

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Dharmadhyaksha likes nominating works of other good faith editors for AFD, MFds.Quite a large number of his AFDs and Proposed deletion get rejected. A well sourced article, which he doesn't like personally, he will nominate the article for deletion. If he doesn't like an artist or an actor, he will nominate the article for deletion. If he doesn't like a particular region, then articles related to that region must be deleted according to Dharmadhyaksha.

Other than that, he abuses the Keep voters by replying to their comment with words as "Duh", "Huh", "Bah".

If he nominated some article for deletion, others can't vote keep?

He doesn't bite newcomers, but he bites old senior editors, by wasting their time in useless nominations for deletions.--112.79.35.196 (talk) 05:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I've had a quick look at Dharmadhyaksha's editing history and don't see anything particularly egregious that requires the attention of this board. The !vote / outcome percentage at Articles for deletion is 74.5%, which is not unreasonable.  Philg88 ^♦talk 05:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

If there are specific edits you feel are problematic please link to them with a diff. Dharma has nearly 30,000 edits and not many people are going to bother searching through all of them just on your suggestion. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

To be frank I hear loud Quacks coming from the nominator. how does an IP with four edits learn about Dharma's long history of nominating articles for deletion? I think it is just some pissed off editor who does not have the moral fibre to make this complaint while logged on. Pretty bad faith to be honest. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with the user above. It seems the IP just has some grudge against them. There is nothing wrong in replying to people on AfDs. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

It could very well be one of the many users who registered an account on Wikipedia just to create an article-like user page for themselves. —Farix (t | c) 14:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Strange moves

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is going to need some administrative cleanup:

• SaboorB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• (Move log); 11:36 . . SaboorB (talk | contribs) moved page Wikipedia:Omer Kauser Malik to Omer Kauser Malik ‎
• (Move log); 11:35 . . SaboorB (talk | contribs) moved page Wikipedia:SaboorB to Wikipedia:Omer Kauser Malik ‎
• (Move log); 11:35 . . SaboorB (talk | contribs) moved page Wikipedia talk:SaboorB to Wikipedia talk:Omer Kauser Malik ‎
• (Move log); 11:35 . . SaboorB (talk | contribs) moved page User:SaboorB to Wikipedia:SaboorB ‎
• (Move log); 11:35 . . SaboorB (talk | contribs) moved page User talk:SaboorB to Wikipedia talk:SaboorB ‎

Vrac (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I have repaired the inappropriate moves and have nominated the article Omer Kauser Malik for deletion as A7 (not notable) and G12 (copy vio; copied from LinkedIn). Thanks for reporting. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Socking and undisclosed COI editing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Batteryoperated2012 (talk · contribs)

Pius Source (talk · contribs)

Vivos Command (talk · contribs)

Shelterist (talk · contribs)

Vivos (underground shelter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Talk:Vivos (underground shelter)

This is a somewhat controversial if low-key page. I've been following the above article for some time, trying to strike a balance between the vitriolic rants of the detractors and the all-too-obvious COI editing of the supporters. The detractors are easy enough to deal with (there simply isn't enough RS to include their wildest claims); the COI editing, until lately, had been largely constructive and also easily dealt with.

However, the COI editor(s) mentioned above have recently taken a new direction, with clear violations of WP:SOCK and WP:COI even after I notified them. {[50], [51], [52]}. I followed one on to Commons, and nominated some of their clear copyvios for deletion, which provoked these {[53], [54]}, effective admissions of socking (and COI) after the warnings posted above. Note that User:Vivos Command was renamed to User:Shelterist shortly after I posted the template messages, showing that they did receive and read them.

I suspect some administrator action should be performed, but know next-to-nothing about how Sockpuppet Investigations are carried out (in fact, I think this is my first time reporting here), or what sanctions are applied to undisclosed COI editors since the Terms of Use were updated. So, I defer to you all: What should be done?

ʍw 17:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

In retrospect, I probably should have posted this at WP:COI/N; I've left a note there. (Like I said, I don't do this sort of thing often.) ʍw 17:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking at this from a WP:COIN perspective, we have 3 SPAs, and an article that reads like an ad. There's enough press coverage for notability. It appears that the company has built one modest shelter in Indiana, owns a surplus Russian bunker in Europe, and everything else is proposed. So, per WP:CRYSTAL, cut the article way down to what has been built.John Nagle (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Nagle: Good edits (here). ʍw 22:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Any admins care to comment on the sockpuppetry & COI issues? Again, the Commons links above strongly suggest User:Pius Source is User:Shelterist, and the images suggest that they are a very close associate (all I can say without outing) of the company's founder, Robert Vicino (see here for whom the photo Shelterist claims to have taken is copyrighted to). User:Shelterist has continued to edit the article. ʍw 22:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

This discussion further suggests a connection between the users mentioned above (given that one started a discussion on the others talkpage), and that they are not here to build the encyclopedia. ʍw 23:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Given the lack of input here, I've started Sockpuppet Investigation (here). ʍw 00:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bad faith closure on talk:Main page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Talk:Main_Page#Proposal:_Remove_WP:In_the_news_from_the_main_page. I think it's clear that any closure that thinks that makes it very clear that the closer has strong bias against the proposal, and wishes to stifle commentary is a bad faith closure.

You can't close debattes you yourself have a personal interest in. That's a basic rule of Wikipedia: Closures are meant to be neutral, not tools for stifling debate you don't want to happen. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• Unless I'm missing some behind-the-scenes activity, I see no evidence the proposal was made in bad faith, so it should not have been closed with that assumption, after 4.5 hours. However, a change of this huge nature to the Main Page would require a site-wide public community discussion, such as an RfC somewhere (including possibly a Signpost heads-up about it), etc. So I think something other than a main-page talk-page thread should determine whether ITN is broken, and if so what to do about it (including possibly abandoning it). Softlavender (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• Though I oppose the purpose and rationale of the discussion, I actually agree it probably should not have been closed. I also agree that a much broader discussion should take place if radical change or abolition is desired. That said, such changes are almost a perennial proposal. 331dot (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• I opposed Adam's suggestion, but I don't think admins who, in effect, snow-close discussions should take it upon themselves to unilaterally and publicly declare the proposing user guilty of "bad faith." Violates WP:AGF and the principle of due process. Sca (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Note that I am not an admin. I closed the discussion because I didn't see it go anywhere else. As for mentioning "bad faith" in the box, I have already struck it and apologized. I think this will be my last closure for the foreseeable future. In any case, I will be much more careful with my language and actions. Isa (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I don't disagree that the proposal would be unlikely to find favor, but perhaps the discussion should be reopened as a courtesy? (Not that I'm in favor, understand.) If there's little further comment over a few days, someone else could close it. Sca (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

BMK has already reopened it, but even if he hadn't, I don't think it would make much sense for me to get anywhere close to this thread again. I'm leaving it as it is for people to see and take appropriate actions if necessary. Isa (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no justification for closing a discussion after less than 4 1/2 hours and 4 !votes, even when all the votes were "oppose". I'm going to re-open it. BMK (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Can I put in a plea that some of us in time zones remote from the UK/Euro/US centre of things need plenty of warning. I have no interest in this particular issue, and that's fortunate because it all took place while I was asleep overnight. Admins, please be mindful of participants' time zones. Akld guy (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Govindaharihari

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm a very sensitive contributor and this post [55] on my talk page has hurt my feelings. It is related to edits at RT (TV network) and Talk:RT (TV network), especially [56], [57] & [58]. I'm also a very busy contributor, so I don't really get into a long discussion about it. Trappedinburnley (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG 207.38.156.219 (talk) 23:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• Well, a half an hour before that you told them they were acting like an ass. Perhaps they are delicate too. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "Sensitive" people are sensitive to the feelings of others. 209.202.5.110 (talk) 03:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Runaway bot, or what?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See [59]. Cliftonian (talk · contribs) has made over 500 edits in the last 2 hours, removing Wikilinks to Israel and changing them to Israel. Did some automated task get out of control, or what? John Nagle (talk) 21:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

No, that's me on AWB. I'm removing WP:EASTEREGG links to "Israeli Jews" under the word "Israeli". This was discussed here and here. Thanks for the note, and sorry for the misunderstanding. —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, there's consensus for this. When I saw the edit rate, it looked like a runaway 'bot. John Nagle (talk) 21:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks John. Hope you're having a pleasant weekend and have a great week. —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Zurich00swiss and WP:NOTWEBHOST

This pains me to report as I was partially responsible for this user's return after an indefinite block for vandalism and sockpuppetry. (Their block apparently caused an innocent party to get blocked as well, which I queried and both users were unblocked. The tail end of the unblock discussion is here).

Zurich00swiss is an enthusiastic and apparently very young editor. He is now using his user page to host a "Aircraft of the week world competition" where " at the end of each month all the users that want to partecipate[sic] will choose their own favourite airplane and will write it on his talk". He has publicised this widely (e.g. [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70]) and now their talk page is stuff related to this too. In the section Aircraft of the week they were advised to remove it all as it was in violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST which they briefly did ([71]), but evidently had a change of mind about an hour later ([72]).

Given their past, the recent poor judgement and now the disregard for policy pointed out to them I have to regrettably conclude this editor is not here for the right reasons and would be better finding a new outlet for their enthusiasm. They've ignored my advice - could an admin take over? RichardOSmith (talk) 22:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I remember this somewhat tortured discussion back when. For the moment, all I've done is delete the userpage.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, if he's not going to take the hint, you eventually have no choice but to use the stick... HalfShadow 01:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:OUT? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I do not think I'm on Wikipedia just to the AIRCRAFT OF THE WEEK ... just wanted to know if I could keep eliminating voting and putting Only I every week a AIRCRAFT OF THE WEEK.
because you have eliminated my user page?
The aviation user. Zurich00swiss (talk) 06:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

What did you say? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 07:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

<step aside please, TEFL emergency response team coming through>

"I don't think I'm on Wikipedia just to do AIRCRAFT OF THE WEEK... I just want to know if I could keep my userpage if I eliminated voting and only put up one AIRCRAFT OF THE WEEK.

Is this why you have deleted my userpage?"

(Native speakers of English - especially native speakers of English - should learn another language.) --Shirt58 (talk) 09:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I echo RichardOSmith's comment above, "This pains me to report as I was partially responsible for this user's return after an indefinite block". In July I unblocked Zurich00swiss to give him a second chance, on the condition that he avoid all the problems that led to the block. Since then I have from time to time looked back at his editing to see how it is going. I have frequently felt uncomfortable about his editing, but until now I had not seen any clear violation of any guidelines or policies, and certainly nothing that has led me to consider reblocking, but enough to make me wonder if that would come sooner or later. For example, I have seen a sufficient number of examples of reverting other editors' edits without obvious reason to give a general impression that there may be a touch of ownership, though I have not seen enough of that on any one article to constitute edit-warring. Some talk page posts also look rather as though there may be some use of Wikipedia as a sort of social network site, and a few warnings to IP editors look questionable.

Against that background of continually seeing editing which I feel mildly unhappy about, I now see the more serious incident discussed here. The use of a user page as what effectively amounts to a blog was probably just a matter of an editor not realising what is and what isn't acceptable on a user page, and it should have been possible for it to be dealt with by a friendly message explaining that it wasn't acceptable, followed by Zurich00swiss abandoning the event. However, that was not to be so. After several editors had politely and patiently explained to him that such use of a user page was unacceptable, he persisted. However, what disturbs me most is his announcing that he was removing the unacceptable content, and then after a while quietly restoring it. What was that about? If he had had second thoughts about accepting the other editors' views on what the user page guidelines allow, then surely the natural and honest thing to do, on restoring content after having told them he was removing it, would have been to have told them he had changed his mind. Could it be that the removal and then restoration of the content was a deliberate attempt to mislead? I hope not, and I would like to be able to extend assumption of good faith, but with an editor who is known to have in the past made deliberate attempts to mislead other editors, one has to have one's doubts. If it wasn't deliberate deception, then it was extremely thoughtless; in either case it was stupid, as it was bound to be noticed. What is more, this restoration of the removed content came after he had been warned "intentionally violating this policy even after it has been pointed out to you may just result in a permanent block for you".

For the moment, the offending user page has been deleted, and I see no need to do anything else. However, I have deliberately taken the time to place on record here my general uncomfortableness with Zurich00swiss's editing, because it all adds up, and if more incidents add up then there may come a day when either I or some other administrator will decide that, even if no one incident warrants a block, the accumulation of incidents does. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, ok, I've made a mistake...
But I stayed a month to write and think about the "AIRCRAFT OF THE WEEK" and now I've see that an aministrator delates all things in my user page.
many users sayd that they block me because I'm on wikipedia just for the "AIRCRAFT OF THE WEEK" I've done this section only to involve users in aviation sector and for write interesting thing in the same sector.
could be my user page restored?
And could be the section of the "AIRCRAFT OF THE WEEK" re-written definitely without the opinions of others users and not in form of blogs?
The aviation user. Zurich00swiss (talk) 10:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• Zurich00swiss: No. Aircraft of the Week has no place on Wikipedia (regardless if others contribute or not) since it's considered to be a blog and as explained by others, blog material is not suitable for Wikipedia. There is no wiggle room around this and I'll openly say that part of the requirements of you remaining unblocked will be that you never add Aircraft of the Week to Wikipedia again in any format. That this is unsuitable for Wikipedia has already been explained to you quite thoroughly and I'll be very honest: at this point I have to wonder if you're really here to positively contribute to Wikipedia or if you're just here to use it as a social media or blog website. You trying to argue for the inclusion of content that has already been deemed unsuitable for Wikipedia does not give off a positive impression, considering that the option of re-blocking you is on the table here if you continue to try to re-add this information and the person who unblocked you is essentially saying that he believes that a re-blocking may be inevitable. The worst thing you can do is continue to lobby for the re-addition of this page, so my advice to you is to drop it and agree to not re-add the page. You're just shooting yourself in the foot by doing this and re-adding it after it has repeatedly been stated to you that it is unacceptable (hence why I bolded and italicized it above) may convince one of the other admins that it might save more trouble if they block you then and there. I want to make sure that you are very aware of this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

But who could it be? I can't think of a relevant aviation troll. No, beats me... Begoon ^talk 11:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's a troll. I think it's just a kid who is enthusiastic about writing about a subject in which he has a keen interest, and doesn't always clearly see what kinds of writing about it are suitable for an encyclopaedia project. Unfortunately, he is also not always ready to accept anything which restricts his freedom to use Wikipedia in the way he would like to, and that is what turns minor problems into bigger ones. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

James, in my experience, you are usually right. Perhaps I'm too sensitive to aviation trolls. I should probably be more receptive to the "innocent newbie" thing.Begoon ^talk 12:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we are dealing with an enthusiast here, but his long history of personal attacks, using fake refs and now lots of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT over using his user page as a private blog are all evidence of ongoing difficulties. I suggested that he move all his personal stuff to a real blog, but he didn't act on that suggestion and just keeps reinstating inappropriate content on his user page, even after being repeatedly told it is inappropriate. Very few of this person's edits have been useful or constructive and he seems determined to argue over the user page issue and not accept policy. If he were blocked he wouldn't be missed on the project as his useful contributions have been minimal and disruption large. - Ahunt (talk) 15:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I only want to say that: yes, I've deleted all the things that you asked me to remove, just little things like my favourite aircraft or my favourite airport, but there are a lot of other users (without revealing names) that have on their user pages all the airport or the airlines where they have travelled or countries where they've set foot! In my opinion there is a paradox because I have to remove these small things also risking a block!

P.S. I had two barnstar in my user page, and I'd like to get them back as it has been deleted! THANKS
The aviation user. Zurich00swiss (talk) 11:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Zurich00swiss: Yes, there are many editors with content on their user pages which shouldn't be there. Sometimes unsuitable content remains for a very long time because nobody notices it: I have known grossly unacceptable content to go unnoticed for a couple of years. In your own case, marginal content was left there for a fair amount of time (whether because it was not noticed, or whether because it was noticed but nobody thought it important enough to take action on) until you went beyond just marginally unsuitable stuff, and started using your user page as a sort of game site. Even then, you were merely asked to take down the totally unsuitable content: if you had just done that then probably nobody would have bothered about the more marginal stuff. It was only because you persisted in keeping the whole lot, and moreover pretended to take it down but quietly put it back, that it reached the stage it is at now. If you call attention to the contents of your user page by that sort of action, then of course that page is going to come under greater scrutiny than user pages of editors who don't go around calling attention to them. Also, if an editor has a history of being troublesome, then of course people are going to allow less leeway in doubtful cases than they are in the case of an editor who just peacefully edits without any problems. I strongly suggest that you concentrate on contributing to the encyclopaedia: a user page should be a very small concern, telling people a little about you in relation to your Wikipedia editing. Any editor for whom user page editing is more than a tiny proportion of his or her editing has the wrong priorities. (About 1 in 8 of your edits so far have been on your user page. About 1 in 650 of my edits have been on my user page. I am not suggesting that everyone must have as low a proportion of user page edits as I have, but I think it illustrates the difference between on the one hand an editor who is largely here to use Wikipedia as a sort of social network site, and for whom continually posting new stuff to a user page, mostly unrelated to the encyclopaedia, is a major focus, and on the other hand an editor who is largely here to contribute to the encyclopaedia, and for whom a user page is not a major focus.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Cough, Troll. (consider the reaction to that characterisation...) Begoon ^talk 14:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• I think Ahunt has made the correct call, above, and that the user is clearly NOTHERE, and moreover is a net negative. It was a fine experiment to unblock him, but now we have to be crystal clear about the continuing outcome of that experiment and the obvious solution to it. Softlavender (talk) 05:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Mark Recio persistently/stubbornly vandalizing articles about the single Latin alphabet letters

With the apparent excuse that all or most articles such as A used to have a section called "Related letters and similar characters", the user in question added several characters to those list that in his opinion may have looked visually similar, while having no connection, such as Arabic numerals or other unrelated Latin letters (like 'P' in the article for B, or 'V' in the article for A).

He was reverted by me and other editors, although he makes this hard by inundating those articles with edits, and he was explained the situation on his talk page. I also changed the section name to remove the unfortunate mention of "similarity", which is clearly not verifiable (needless to mention anyway, perhaps, the user did not even attempt to cite any sources for his additions), and included a comment to explain why such additions should not be done anymore.

My comment was, however, silently removed.

This has continued pretty much in real time, and the edits from this user have become more and more absurd-sounding.

As another editor warned, the three-revert rule has been violated to an extent it's very hard to follow by now.

I will now not attempt to fix the obviously broken edits from this user any further since it's basically impossible to even keep track, until some action is taken.

• Follow-up: More edits are coming from this user and they seem equally as inane as the previous ones: [73] [74] [75]. After the ultimatum, he did this edit plus others: let me state the obvious, that his calling the check mark a "v mark" is his original idea and the article itself doesn't support that, nor does anything claim that it is related to the letter V... so the disruptive pattern continues.
• Follow-up: Now that the user is blocked and his edits don't have to be chased anymore, I've been able to take the time to explain the situation to him at length. Hopefully I've done it properly and he will understand and respond.

LjL (talk) 12:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• Ultimatum issued. Favonian (talk) 12:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 days for continuing disruptive editing after Favonian's warning. I hope that a short block will at least get the editor talking. (Note: It looks as though there's still some cleanup to be done on Mark Recio's edits.) Deor (talk) 13:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I am trying to clean up further now. I gave up doing that until some action was taken since it came down to racing against him and I didn't really want to end up being the one violating revert rules, which would have been quite ironic. LjL (talk) 13:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC) Done, please have a look if you anything further wrong. LjL (talk) 15:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

mop to the edit summary , please

Could someone with a mop take care of this [76]. Sometimes bots are a little thick. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• and the one before it too, please. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Why? It's just repetitive swearing followed by garden-variety nonsense. There's no reason to hide it from non-admins. Graham87 06:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

This is not a diff that needs to be DevDel'd, per policy. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Reporting user:Springee for Hounding and Tendentious editing

user:Springee has been disruptively editing and wikihounding individuals over the past few weeks. Springee has wikihounded user:HughD by following him to multiple articles and reverting his edits in part or in whole, as well as disruptively tagging his edits. [[77]][[78]][[79]][[80]][[81]][[82]][[83]][[84]]. In all of these articles, you can extend the list to 500 edits and see that Springee only became involved immediately after an edit by HughD and Springee's involvement was either to revert HughD's edit, or tag them under the guise of "undue" or "notability". You can do a simple Ctrl+F search for "springee" to see exactly where the user became involved in the article and see what their first few edits were. Springee had no previous involvement on these articles and it's clear he only became involved to disrupt the edits of another user.

Springee has also tendentiously reverted edits under the premise of "no consensus", which is a direct example of WP:TEND. As per wp:TEND "You delete the cited additions of others with the complaint that they did not discuss their edits first. There is no rule on Wikipedia that someone has to get permission from you before they put cited information in an article." It's one thing to object to material for RS, weight, or NPOV purposes, but to remove reliably sourced additions because "they didn't discuss it first and get consensus" is a direct example of tendentious editing. Here are multiple instances of these types of reverts by Springee [85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92]. What's even more concerning is that Springee applies his "no consensus" reasoning selectively. It appears that edits he/she agrees with don't get reverted for reasons of "no consensus" and Springee even goes out of the way, in some cases, to thank and welcome the addition of material added without consensus [93]. On top of that, the user protects information added without consensus by citing "no consensus" for removal. This inconsistnecy and selective application shows that this isn't just a matter of not understanding Wikipedia policy, but a matter of selectively disrupting disagreeable edits. I have discussed this matter with Springee here [94], yet the user persists in this type of behavior. Scoobydunk (talk) 17:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• [Note, this is a later edit. Please note the date and time vs edits below. It is placed here to directly reply to the changes listed in the ANI accusation above]
• The first list of 8 references are simply links to page edit histories. I'm not sure how I am supposed to reply to that material. Yes, I edited on all those pages for various reasons.
• The second list of 8 references are to edits that Scoobydunk claims are WP:TEND. Note that this is a somewhat vague description and not a WP guideline. Scoobydunk claims I'm reverting (presumably solely) with the justification "no consensus". I'm putting forth that his claim is not true. I will go through all 8 of the edits in question to explain why.

1. [95] This is an edit in which I reverted a removal of content by Scoobydunk. Another editor had added the material and I agreed with its inclusion. The related talk section is here[96]. Note the discussion regarding the edits in question began before the Scoobydunk reverted Rjensen's edits which I added back to the article.
2. [97] This edit, like many relate to the changes HughD made to the Chicago-style politics page. On Aug 26th, 2015 an IP editor tried to return the article to the subject it had from its creation in 2011 through April of 2014 when HughD changed the topic to concentrate on a POV fork. The IP's initial edit is here[98]. I noticed HughD's involvement with this topic because this was during the same time period when he was attempting to insert a controversial Mother Jones article into a number of global warming related pages. In edits below I explain(ed) why I was involved in the MJ related content dispute. Since I am from near Chicago I decided to investigate the changes. That is when I saw that HughD had turned the article into a POV fork with no justifications on the talk page. The tag claiming the article was about a meme was simply not true historically and was added to justify removing other content. Thus I did have a reason for removing it that was related to the topic, not the editor. The topic shift was questioned in April of this year with no reply from HughD. The tag in question was only added after the IP editor tried to restore the earlier article topic sentence.
3. [99] Removal of the same tag as above. This time HughD added it back in without responding to questions about the topic redirection on the talk page. Here is my question regarding the article redirect[100]. The tag was restored by HughD at the same time [101]. Restoring a questionable tag when other editors have made it clear that the existence of the tag should be discussed is not constructive editing.
4. [102] This one is laughable. The editor in question was an "undercover" diarist at the Daily Kos. He was indefinately blocked shortly after this exchange [103]. The editor had added ~8k worth of content in a mass addition. Several editors, myself included objected to such a large and not well balanced addition. Several of us engaged in a discussion with the editor regarding the edit he was trying to make [104]. Prior to getting consensus and over the objections of the consensus of the talk page VVUSA/KochTruths added the content. I reverted it. For my trouble I was accused of being on the Koch brother's payroll on the Daily Kos.
5. [105] This was disputed content which had already been added by HughD then removed by Capitalismojo then restored by HughD before he even joined in the talk page discussion regarding the content. I was following the edit history of Capitalismojo (not HughD) when I saw this content dispute. I agreed with the reasons for removal and hence joined in the editing. Note that this Mother Jones content was added to nearly a dozen article and thus what seem to be a range of unrelated articles are all part of the same content disagreement in which several editors were involved.
6. [106] In this case, while there is an active AFD discussing both the Chicago-style politics and Chicago-style politics (meme) (the later a POV fork article created when HughD couldn't get consensus to keep the older article focused on the POV subtopic) pages with a likely outcome that the articles (the parent and the POV fork) will be merged, HughD adds a tag from the parent to the likely to be removed via merger POV fork. For the sake of article stability this sort of editing should be avoided hence I removed the tag. Note this was done after Fyddlestyx did a great job of restoring not only the older content that HughD had removed (see the article's recent edit history) but also did a good job of including mention of the meme content Hugh wanted to focus on. I don't think it was unreasonable to ask that we not put such edits into the article until the AFD and article mergers are complete.
7. [107] This tag (no material was removed) is related to the Chicago-style politics and associated CSP meme article. Another editor tagged the newly created meme page as an orphan. Hugh then proceeded to add questionable "chicago-style politics" references to several articles including this one. The additions were questionable and I put both questions on the talk pages and in the article each time the content was added. As an example, in the Halftime talk edit list you will see I am the second editor [108]. Thus the article tag was an invitation to justify a questionable content addition. The tags were not stand alone.
8. [109] This is an article which was discussing the Southern Strategy. An editor made a large 2.1K removal of sourced content. I reverted that removal and added a discussion page comment asking for justification for such a large removal [110].

• While I can see Scoobydunk doesn't agree with my POVs on various subjects I think he was looking for a reason to claim WP:TEND and thus when he found posts that appeared to fit the pattern he went with it and we are here. I would question how he can claim this isn't about the content when it appears he isn't actually following the content discussions. I will also reiterate my claim from below that I believe Scoobydunk has an axle to grind. Consider this accusation of dishonesty on my part that he posted in reply to my comments [111]. Springee (talk) 03:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

2. (above) This particular edit is as clear an example of the reported user's blatant edit war baiting and tendentious editing as any. Several editors including the reported editor and an SPA IP were understandably confused about the relationship between our Political history of Chicago and Chicago-style politics articles and were approaching Chicago-style politics as a POV re-telling of Political history of Chicago, so an {{about-distinguish}} article hat was a completely appropriate, constructive, helpful approach to building our encyclopedia. Within the hour, with no talk page discussion, the reported user reverted the addition of the article hat with his favorite edit summary, "no consensus," which to the reported user means "I don't like it." The reported user characterized their motivation as "Since I am from near Chicago I decided to investigate," but WP:HARASS includes no exception authorizing harassment of editors from the same geographic area as one's self. By "I noticed HughD's involvement" the reported editor means of course he was digging through my edit history looking for contributions to political, but non-Tea Party, articles. My edit history goes back to 2006 including some 15,000 edits, 70% article space, and multiple good articles so respectfully if the reported user's harassment behavior is not addressed we should expect the harassment to continue for a good long time. I agree with the reported editor's strategy, I am a deeply flawed human and reverting my edits on articles from my history very likely should have induced a reportable edit war, and advanced the American politics ban he sought, but it did not this time WP:GAME. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd also like to note that Springee's edit above is another example of tendentious behavior since he clearly disregards proper threading, as I've previously mentioned on this notice. Springee is clearly trying to justify the fact that he was wikihounding and reverting editors' comments for the reason of "no consensus" which is an explicit example of tendentious editing. I'd also like to point out that Springee regards this ANI notice and the over 16 examples of his wikihounding/tendentious editing as "jokes" [112]. Scoobydunk (talk) 00:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? It seems like you are trying to attack me because of a content disagreement on the Southern Strategy article and perhaps left over resentment because I disagreed with you and argued against your claims on the Americans For Prosperity RfC that recently didn't go your way (RfC[113] and your frustration that it was not decided as you had wished [114]). You have disagreed with myself and a few other editors on the Southern Strategy talk page recently. Today I proposed making some changes here [115], the first edit on the talk page since Aug 30th. You personally haven't edited that page since Aug 27th. I proposed adding to a section that you have strongly opposed since it's inception. So today when I proposed additional changes, changes you oppose, you quickly reply (your first content related reply to any article/talk page since Aug 27th). Note that your only edits between the 27th and today were to attack me attack me on Sept 3rd/4th. In that case you were siding with a blogger who initially joined here under the name "KochTruths" and filed an ANI accusing myself and three other editors of being paid stooges of Koch Industries[116]. It seems odd that as soon as I propose some changes to an article you appear to be watching, changes you wouldn't agree with, an ANI pops up, an ANI almost exclusively about edits to articles that you aren't involved with. It seems to me you are trying to game the system by using a ANI to block edits you don't agree with. Springee (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

That's not entirely fair, the concern that you were following HughD was raised by both Scooby and myself more than two weeks ago, in our comments on your edit warring report against Hugh. FWIW, there is pretty clear evidence of your following him too: especially to the Bernard Stone GA review, to Political History of Chicago, to Donor's Trust and to Chicago Style Politics. I was also concerned that you were one of several editors who seemed to be following Hugh, which is why I urged you (and Hugh) to avoid working on the same articles just a day or two ago. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The evidence of your wikihounding and tendentious editing is plainly clear. Please focus on the actual merit of the complaint instead of raising red herring arguments in the form of argumentum ad hominem. To address those concerns, I've raised these issues with you over the course of our discussions, and they've gone ignored. Now that the weekend is done and I have time to dedicate to addressing this issue, so I've raised a complaint here. It was specifically this edit [117] that prompted me to raise this issue. Again, you listed "no consensus" as part of the reason for removal, even after you were aware that removing material for that reason was tendentious behavior. Upon further review, I noticed "no consensus" in many other reverts of your's that I was unaware of before. This is continuing and prolonged behavior that needs to be addressed. I suggest you speak to the accusations levied against you, instead of trying to "shoot the messenger".Scoobydunk (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• In regard to the "following him to multiple articles and reverting his edits in part or in whole, as well as disruptively tagging his edits accusation the wide range of subject areas covered are: Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, Political history of Chicago, Halftime in America, David Axelrod, Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012, Karl Rove and Chicago-style politics. It seems reasonable that HughD is being followed but I am unsure in which direction tend is supposed to be in operation. GregKaye 19:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• I mentioned this in a previous edit below but I will add it here for better clarity. There are two recent topics in which I and others engaged with HughD. The first related to the edit warring report I created related to a series of edits by HughD [118]. The pages in question were: Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change,American Petroleum Institute,ExxonMobil,American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity,Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley,The Heartland Institute, and FreedomWorks. You will see there were multiple discussions related to the attempt add a single Mother Jones article to all of those articles. As I said in the ANI there were at least three other editors who disagreed with the insertion as HughD had made it and as he reinserted it. One characteristic of HughD's editing is repeated insertions even as people are discussing the topic. That and the fact that he undid multiple reverts, not just by myself but by other editors who objected to the same article.

The second set of articles relating to HughD's edits all involve the Chicago-style politics article. This article got my attention as I was reviewing HughD's recent edits associated with the then active dispute over the Mother Jones article. Given the range of articles HughD was attempting to put the MJ article into and simply trying to keep up with all the various edits it was natural to check to see what edits he made recently. That is when I noticed the revert of an IP edit to the Chicago-style article (I'm from near Chicago originally so that also caught my eye). Then I discovered the history of the article. April of 2014 you will see that HughD totally changed the nature of the article without a single comment on the talk page [119]. The IP editor was attempting to undo that change. DaltonCastle also noted the change but his talk comment was not answered by HughD [120]. With the support of DaltonCastle I started to revert the article to it's earlier form. The result was HughD creating a second article as well as flooding the original one with edit tags. When an unrelated editor noted that HughD's newly created article was an orphan[121]. TO address this HughD added questionable references to other articles. Those articles include the ones I added "weight" tags to. The articles in question were Halftime in America [122], David Axelrod [123], Mit Romney [124], and Karl Rove [125]. Again these were all related to the same Chicago-style politics content dispute and were added simply to address the article orphan issue related to a newly created POV fork from the older article.

Scoobydunk did mention a few others that are unrelated to HughD (is original post seems to mix and match things). Some are related to the [Southern Strategy] article. This is part of why I think he is going after me as a way to address a content dispute. This one is Southern Strategy related [126]. I guess I'm wrong in thinking removing that much reliably sourced content without a talk page comment is questionable? Again the BRD cycle says if someone reverts it the next step is discuss. However, as that revert related to an editor other than HughD I'm not sure how this counts as hounding or much of anything other than the BRD cycle. Scoobydunk also listed this edit [127]. Well that is a content dispute with me on the Southern Strategy page. Note that I was reverting a removal of his, not adding/readding content of my own.

This final one is a bad joke [128]. That was my ONE revert of content added to all of the Koch Industires page by an editor who, as people suspected was a troll who was almost instantly blocked for the user name "KochTruths" then came back under a new user name and got blocked about a week later (indefinite block) [129]. The editor made a series of article changes, was reverted by another editor and then engaged in something that pretended to be discussion. When he went ahead and made changes that we had not agreed to in the talk section I reverted them. One of the charges made by Scoobydunk is that I was engaged in tagging edits or reverting edits without discussion or cause. That is far from true. I have extensively used the talk pages to try to discuss changes before editing the actual articles. Hence my edit history is heavy on the talk page end of things. For reasons that it can appear to look bad when one doesn't see how the edits I agree that I will avoid editing interactions with HughD once the Chicago AFD is closed out. But I can't help but question Scoobydunk's motives to get involved in something that in which he isn't at all involved. Why join in this boomerang ANI on the side of a trolling editor if you don't have an ax of your own to grind [130]. Springee (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

A couple of things to address. First, it is also outlined in WP:TEND that improper threading can also indicate tendentious behavior. Fyddlestix and I have already responded to GregKaye's post. If you want to respond to it as well, then your response would come after ours and be placed below our responses, in the correct chronological order. As per WP:THREAD "If you wish to reply to a comment that has already been replied to, place your response below the last response, while still only adding one colon to the number of colons preceding the statement you're replying to." If you are going to correct the placement of this most recent response, feel free to move my own response (this response), as well. Second, outlining your reasoning for the behavior is irrelevant. Just like the reasoning for edit warring is irrelevant to the fact that an editor was edit warring. It doesn't matter if you're right or wrong in the addition/removal of material in an edit war, edit warring is seen as disruptive and comes with swift results. Harassment and tendentious editing is no different. Here we have multiple concrete examples of your following HughD around to multiple articles that you've never been involved in, and reverting his edits. We also have multiple examples of you trying to force people to get a consensus before adding or removing material from articles. There are valid reasons for reverting other users but the objection of "no consensus" is not one of them as identified and explained by WP:TEND. So it's not a part of the BRD cycle. The BRD cycle includes reversions and discussion that actually have to deal with WP policies, and gaining the approval of you or other editors is not one of those policies, as is directly expressed in WP:TEND.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Relevant context here is that Hugh was reported here multiple times (including twice by Springee) for his behavior on Koch and climate-change articles, and was topic-banned for it by Ricky81682 a few weeks ago. Springee has continued to follow Hugh since then, though, most notably to Chicago-style politics, which led to some squabbling between the two of them on the talk page, a spin-off article (Chicago-style politics (meme)) and this AFD. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're not sure about, so I'll repeat it more plainly. Reverting edits because there is "no consensus" is referred to as tendentious editing. Springee has made multiple reverts almost solely based on there being "no consensus" or "no consent" and has spoken this directly in the edit comment of the diffs listed above. I've addressed this issue with Springee, so he's aware that it's tendentious to require editors get consensus before adding/removing cited and sourced material from articles, yet he continues to do so.Scoobydunk (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it's quite fair to claim Scoobydunk is attacking me due to a content disagreement. His posting of this ANI and the retort to my Southern Strategy talk comments were back to back. As for following HughD claims, well actually I agreed with Fyddlestix that it was looking questionable and thus once the Chicago article was settled I am planning on cutting back on editing in general for a while. I'm still rather frustrated by the external attack on me related to the Koch Industries page mentioned above. However, the claims of following all over are not quite right. In reality we have just two recent sets of edits. The first was the set of edits related to trying to insert a Mother Jones article into potentially a dozen articles. Those were the mid August edits. They all related to basically the same topic. I did accuse HughD of edit waring related to those edits [[131]]. Since this was a case of trying to insert a questionable citation into several articles it looks like I'm following to a number of articles when in fact it's all part of the same content dispute. I discovered the articles in question by looking at some of the activities of Capitalismojo and Arthur Rubin. I agreed with them that the edits were questionable. The Chicago-style politics article was one that I admit I found via looking through HughD's edit history. However, that is hardly the hounding Scoobydunk wants to claim. HughD was making lots of edits to lots of articles as part of what I saw as edit waring (again see the recent ANI). I noticed that he objected to some IP edits and immediately posted a "don't do that again" type message on the IP's talk page (one of the IP edits in question [132]). What the IP editor objected to was the way HughD had taken an article about the phrase "Chicago-style politics" and turned it into an article that discussed attacks against Obama. This was don't without comments on the talk page and against the muted objections of others. Sorry, that article caught my attention and I agreed with the IP editor as well as the editor who objected on the talk page. The details of that interaction can be seen in the following talk pages but they are on the up and up. After creating a new page of questionable value another editor tagged it as questionable for bing an orphan article. HughD added tags in several articles that were clearly of questionable merit simply to create links to the new article. That's the ugly history of that story. Note that I didn't go around reverting HughD's edits. I tagged them as questionable because I do think they are questionable. If editors have specific article questions I can answer them in more detail. Do note that what seems like a lot of different articles are actually related by just two edit/content disagreements, the inclusion of a Mother Jones article listing "the climate change dirty dozen" and the edits to and related to Chicago-style politics page and the POV fork Chicago-style politics (meme) including the addition of questionable links to the latter at pages like Halftime in America, David Axelrod, Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 and Karl Rove.

Regardless, if it will make Scoobydunk happy, I won't join in any new content disputes with HughD for at least 30 days. That should show good faith and address concerns. I still find it odd that Scoobydunk decided to post this ANI right at a time that I'm disagreeing with him in an article unrelated to HughD. Why Scoobydunk decided to posted it instead of the aggrieved also makes me think this is a content dispute. Certainly he has shown strong and vocal disagreement with myself and at least one other editor at Southern Strategy as well as earlier during the previously mentioned RfC. Springee (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The opportunity to step back was when I first raised these issues. This is serious behavior since tendentious editing and knowingly editing tendentiously disrupts the principles of Wikipedia and the enjoyment of other editors. Wikihounding is also a serious form of harassment which is not to be taken lightly. I believe a more serious and long term admin sanction is required to cover the behavior exhibited by Springee.Scoobydunk (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict with above post) Sorry for breaking this up, I have been getting interrupted while putting these posts together, hence things are not as organized as I would wish. Anyway, to further my claim that this is something related to Scoobydunk using the ANI to attack me please note these WP:BATTLE posts to HughD's talk page. Scoobydunk is trying to coach HughD into feeling hounded: [133][134]. Hugh has filed a number of ANIs against other editors [135], [136],[137]. Why encourage this action against me by a third party unless there is a personal motivation given the third party is more than capable of posting the ANI himself. There was also this out of the blue attack on me in the ANI that had nothing to do with HughD (the KochTruth blogger ANI) [138]. Why make such an unrelated statement in that ANI unless your intent was somehow personal or content dispute related. Again, I think this point to an attempt to bully to resolve the content dispute related to my post earlier today. Springee (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Without commenting on the other claims in this case, this edit[139] certainly looks like an example of "let's you and him fight". --Guy Macon (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Guy Macon, I'd like to point this out as another example of Springee's tendentious editing. In the diff Macon linked to Springee says "Do not add the material again without going through the discuss part of the BOLD cycle." which is another demand requiring consensus and seems potentially threatening. Springee's attempt to turn the subject matter of this post on me is what he typically does against other editors to avoid responsibility for his actions. The real battleground behavior here is exhibited by sPringee in the form of tendentious editing and wikihounding. Suffice to say, I've well witnessed multiple examples of disruptive behavior from Springee towards other editors and offered suggestions to those abused editors on how to address the issue. It's no surprise that they haven't pursued the issue because Springee and others attempt to "shoot the messenger". This is not okay, and though Springee now attempts to levy accusations against me and my motives, none of this should take away from the harassment and disruptive editing he's exhibited on multiple occasions. Scoobydunk (talk) 21:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Why didn't you post this ANI a long time ago rather than just today when I proposed making changes you disagree with?[140] These are changes that you seem to be the lone, vocal hold out against. You could have easily posted this ANI in a more timely fashion. Would you have posted this had I not edited [Talk:Southern_strategy] this morning? Springee (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I've already explained this above and also gave the direct link to the edit that prompted me to raise this issue. Your edits since that last "no consensus" reversion you made are irrelevant to the fact that I've been monitoring this and have been attempting to address this behavior for some time now. I'll also note, that I have raised this issue before in other ANI posts, but it got completely ignored by admins. I've already spoken to this fact and this behavior is clearly something that shouldn't be ignored. I thought my mentioning this on other ANI reports against you would be sufficient, but since those reports have been closed with no action taken against your behavior, I'm left with no option but to raise my own ANI notice. It's quite simple really.Scoobydunk (talk) 21:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

So wait, you are now claiming this is a conspiracy between several editors to intimidate more than just HughD? "Suffice to say, I've well witnessed multiple examples of disruptive behavior from Springee towards other editors and offered suggestions to those abused editors on how to address the issue. It's no surprise that they haven't pursued the issue because Springee and others attempt to "shoot the messenger"." Who are these other editors and who are these other people we are intimidating? It was less than a week ago I was accused of being on the Koch brother's payroll.

Your edit that raised the issue wasn't today. You linked to quite a few edits. Which "no consensus" edit are you talking about? This one [141]? That would strongly support my view that this is an attempt to control content in [Southern Strategy]. Springee (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Nothing in my comment indicated a conspiracy and you can click the diffs supplied in the original complaint to see the different editors who you've tendentiously reverted due to "no consensus". The previous ANI notices with HughD and that Veritasvenci (SP) show you and other editors ignoring the content of the complaint to pursue accusations against the person who proposed the complaint. This doesn't suggest a "conspiracy", but there is ample evidence that editors have ignored your behavior to focus on others' behavior, and this is what I was speaking to. Also, I made a specific response to one of your comments where I outlined the specific example of your tendentious editing. You can find it here [142]. I'm not sure why I'm bothering linking it for you because it's clear you ignored it the first time to continue to pursue your red herring arguments.Scoobydunk (talk) 23:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

That edit was the one that broke your camel's back? Well at least that was only two days ago... unlike most of this stuff, some of which is almost a month old. But why reply just after I proposed edits on the Southern Strategy page? Your ANI and your negative reply to my proposals were just back to back. Regardless, do you think the tag I removed was proper in the case of two articles that are likely to be merged based on AFD consensus? Why add a tag to the article that is likely to be gone in less than a week or from an article which is likely to be gone in less than a week? Isn't adding that, given that consensus is clearly that one or the other will go away it's own form of tedious editing? I noticed that you are the only editor who complained about that edit. None of the involved editors objected. You are of course welcome to join the discussion if you think that tag should have remained. I think if you look into the specific histories of the edits you have cited you will find that they are not unreasonable and I do listen to group discussion and consensus. But if you think KochTruth/VeritasVincitUSA[143] was just here to build a better encyclopedia you are certainly welcome to argue that case. Springee (talk) 23:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not interested in discussing red herring arguments. I think it's more telling that you're attempting to justify your wikihounding and tendentious editing, instead of taking accountability for it. Even worse, you're trying to pass the blame to other editors when you say "Isn't adding that, given that consensus is clearly that one or the other will go away it's own form of tedious editing?" What other editors do is irrelevant to the fact that you're editing has been tendentious. You've been told about it, it's been previously discussed, yet you continue to do it. I'm not interested in content disputes about the tag and we're not here to discuss content disputes. Also note, I'm not complaining about any particular edit, I'm talking about behavior that is evident across multiple articles. So please stop trying to distract from that issue. Scoobydunk (talk) 02:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment The reported user wrote above: "the third party is more than capable of posting the ANI himself." From my point of view it is very clear that the reported user has singled me out, is following me, and digging into my contributions to our project in my edit history in search of articles likely on my watch list, to multiple articles, and reverting and tagging my edits. To me the reported user’s intention is very clearly to cause distress and disrupt my enjoyment of participating in our project. The reported user's stalking is accompanied by tendentious editing and personal attacks WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Whenever I attempted to address this behavior with the reported user (01:11, 12 September 2015; 11:40, 10 September 2015; 20:22, 9 September 2015; 17:19, 8 September 2015; 13:45, 8 September 2015; 13:08, 6 September 2015; 20:24, 28 August 2015) the reported user ignores me or reminds me that I have been warned and name-drops his favorite administrator 01:24, 12 September 2015. The reported user seems incapable of discussing content without discussing editors. The reported user was unsatisfied with a topic ban under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement, unsatisfied with a hybrid WP:ARBTPM/Koch topic ban, and immediately following the imposition of the topic ban pursued an aggressive program of edit war baiting toward his goal of a joint WP:ARBTPM/American politics topic ban or more. When my contributions to our project dropped off in the wake of the topic ban, the reported user dove into my edit history seeking fodder for his edit war baiting, and found among others a WP:CHICAGO article I worked on in April, 2014. The reported user decided my edits of April, 2014 were without consensus and demanded that I justify the edits. The reported user is not here to work on our project; his project is me WP:NOTHERE. I felt so badly when he took his project to WP:CHICAGO article space that I apologized to my fellow project members on project talk. Respectfully request a review of the reported user's editting behavior and at a minimum an indefinite one-way interaction ban. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The reported user wrote above: "I didn't go around reverting HughD's edits." The report user pursued an aggressive project of edit war baiting across multiple articles, please see 14:18, 9 September 2015; 13:52, 9 September 2015; 10:54, 8 September 2015; 07:46, 5 September 2015; 13:04, 1 September 2015; 21:22, 28 August 2015; 00:32, 28 August 2015. That's just the first page of my notifications. More of the reported user's edit war baiting available upon request. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The reported user wrote above: "Scoobydunk is attacking me due to a content disagreement." This is a report of problem behavior, not a content dispute. The following series of edits is particularly telling in terms of demonstrating blatant edit war baiting behavior: I removed a tagged, unreferenced, irrelevant, original research sentence from a WP:CHICAGO article; minutes later, the reported user restored the content; the next day, a third party editor removed the same sentence; minutes later, the reported user thanked the third party editor at article talk. For me this exchange was particularly dispiriting. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

In evaluating the reported user's proposal of a month long voluntary interaction ban, please note that since his proposal the reported user has continued his project of hounding, deleted a page I created and engaging me on my talk page demanding I not interact with him. The reported user is hounding me to comply with his proposed remedy for his hounding of me. The reported user is not here to work on our encyclopedia. The reported user may require administrator intervention or he will not desist in his project of harassment. Thank you in advance for your attention to this behavior. Hugh (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The above are reverts after discussions were underway and related to material on the talk pages. Given your recent history of disruptive editing (your block log has 4 entries this year including edit warring) and given that your year long topic ban was due to misrepresenting facts as you were attempting to have sanctions brought against an admin, I don't think we can just assume your presentation of the material is at least somewhat self serving. It seems this is becoming a tit-for-tat discussion. That is exactly why I told Fyddlestix I was burned out and ready to take a break [144]. I agree with his last comment (though I realized I didn't actually reply to it at the time). Springee (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The edits above relate to your blitz to remove content that didn't support the POV fork you added to the article. I was asking only that myself and others be given the time to correct the lack of citations in the older content rather than simply blanking it. You didn't bring your disagreements to the talk page but instead made edits without discussion when it was clear myself and others were now trying to get some agreement on the article changes. The "third party editor" was Fyddlestix and again you are misrepresenting the events. The one line I restored was discussion the history of the phrase the article was about before you changed the entire article into a POV fork without a single comment on the talk page. Fyddlestix took the time to really rewrite the article to include the historic information with references. I thanked him for a whole sale rewrite of the article, not for removing or adding a single sentence. It seems very questionable to present the facts as you just did. Springee (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

HughD, you were topic banned for being less than honest in your dealing with an RAE you filed. You claimed you stepped back when in fact you were topic banned under protest [145]. I can't help but think your above post is a self serving, opportunist set of claims trying to make you look like a victim. For example, on the Chicago talk page why did you start by attacking my motives rather than justifying your edits ([146], [147],[148])? Why did you attack me instead of answer a topic based question? If you look at that talk section in general you will see that I was trying to discuss the article topic and ask why you changed it. You were trying to avoid that topic. This is hardly a case of you being a victim, instead this is you refusing to engage in a dialog about your edits. Do you think comments such as this [149] are productive or focus on the content?

Anyway, as I said in the Chicago-style politics talk page and will say again here, I'm rather tired of all of this myself and I'm happy to take a step back for a while. To avoid the look of impropriety I'm happy to stay away from any new topics you are actively involved with for at least one month. That should give both of us a welcome rest. [User:Springee|Springee]] (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:HARASS: "It is as unacceptable to harass a user ... who has been blocked, banned, or otherwise sanctioned, as it is to harass any other user." Hugh (talk) 17:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

But in the same section it IS considered reasonable to "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." and "The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." The edits you were making were very questionable thus there was an overriding reason. I joined the MJ related articles after looking at what others, not you, were editing. The Chicago related articles were to correct the way you created a POV fork in the original article. To claim this was to hound you you need to show that your original edits to the Chicago-style politics article were reasonable. Even when asked on the talk page you never justified the whole sale change you made to the article. Thus WP:HOUND doesn't apply in that case. The same is true of the MJ case where a number of editors disagreed with you and I ended up working with another editor to try to come to a amicable solution to the problem. Springee (talk) 18:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

FALSE, reverting HughD's edits on the basis of "no consensus" is not an example of "fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." As a matter of fact, using the reasoning of "no consensus" is actually, itself, an unambiguous violation of WP policy as per WP:TEND. So your reversions are not covered in the scope of exceptions for following a user and changing their edits and actually are part of the reason you're being reported for tendentious editing as well. Also, claiming that his edits were "questionable" is a further admission that they were not "unambiguous" because "questionable" inherently implies ambiguity and uncertainty. You also just admitted to having an overriding reason of "no consensus" which,in and of itself, is tendentious. WP:Hound clearly applies and this comment of yours only further proves it.Scoobydunk (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed solution As a means to close this ANI out I propose a self imposed interaction ban between HughD and myself for at least a month. The only exception will be closure of the Chicago-style politics article and related page discussions. As I said to Fyddlestix I was ready for a break and this seems like the perfect time to take it. I hope that will satisfy all involved. Springee (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Solution - I believe HughD's suggestion of an interaction ban as well as a 1-3 month site ban should be sufficient in giving Springee enough time to reflect on the disruptive behavior. The interaction ban only addresses a single aspect of the issue, but ignores the fact that he's tendentiously edited against other editors. Interaction ban would be relatively minor considering that other accounts have been indefinitely banned for harassment, which is what wikihounding is. Springee has also demonstrated tendentious behavior here pertaining to not assuming good faith and accusing others of malice, both of which are outlined in WP:TEND. In just this ANI discussion thus far, Springee has implicated my motives are questionable, accused me of bullying, accused me of gaming the system, accused me of battleground mentality, accused me of levying conspiracy theories, and has accused me of having an ax to grind. Even when HughD offers his input on his feelings, Springee immediately attacks him as "self serving" and "playing the victim" instead of reflecting on the impact his own behavior has had on HughD. This is clearly not strictly about the relationship between Springee and HughD, but is clearly about Springee's tendentious editing, harassment, and attacking others instead focusing on the fact that there are over 8 diffs of his wikihounding and over 8 diffs of his tendentious editing. This requires much more than a self-imposed interaction ban.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree an interaction ban only partially addresses the serious behavior reported here. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

1-3 month site ban? Seriously? This again makes me think your intent is vindictive rather than anything else. WP states that blocks are not meant to punish but to protect the site. Thus if I agree to any self imposed limits and stick to them you should have no grounds on which to protest... unless your motives are vindictive. Furthermore, I provided examples of you trying to brow beat an admin with whom you had a disagreement[150]. Here was the last reply to you, "One of us is being aggressive and confrontational. It's not me. ... Guy (Help!) 22:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)". It seems I'm not the only one who would think you are confrontational and will try to brow beat to get it your way. Since you are attacking me with this ANI I am certainly free to call your motives into question. You did the same to me when I posted an ANI unrelated to you. You also did the same TOO me when KochTruth posted an ANI to attack me that resulted in a boomerang and indefinite block. It's funny that you accuse me of not assuming good faith yet you aren't willing to do the same with respect to the edits I was making. Springee (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, harassment is a serious issue. Also, I didn't question your motives, I simply raised the issue of your tendentious editing and wikihounding, thinking that an admin would be responsible enough to address those serious issues. Sorry, but I'm pretty sure "good faith" becomes a non-issue when there are over 16 instances of wikihounding and tendentious editing combined. I also already explained how your self imposed interaction ban doesn't address the issue of your overall tendentious behavior and harassment.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

You did question my motives. When you said WP:HOUND you have to question my motives because part of the test for hounding is this "The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason.". So do you think HughD's MJ and Chicago-style politics edits were "reasonable"? Understand that you weren't involved in those discussions so you probably didn't follow their developments. My "over all tendentious behavior" is a farce. You have only three examples, weak at best, that don't relate to the topic disputes with HughD. The Southern Strategy one is clearly a content dispute with you. One is related to Koch Truth (again, are you defending his edits as valid?) and one is related to a large scale removal of content without explanation. I reversed that removal. I don't see that other editors objected (yourself included). Can you make your case on just the three edits that aren't related to HughD? Springee (talk) 18:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Nope, I never addressed your reason for wikihounding nor even spoke to your motives. I only acknowledged the fact that you were wikihounding and have supplied 8 instances of it with other editors contributing more examples. Also, tendentious editing is not a farce and if you would actually read other peoples' responses, then you'd know that trying to defend tendentious behavior is irrelevant. Just like trying to defend edit warring is irrelevant to the fact that a user was edit warring. Making tendentious reverts citing "no consensus" is a violation of WP:TEND and is disruptive editing just like edit warring is, regardless of whether you think your were right/wrong with those reverts. Again, you continue to make baseless assertions and strawman arguments instead of accepting accountability for your behavior which only further shows that you have no intention on correcting this behavior.Scoobydunk (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I would like to point out that following another editor around Wikipedia is not hounding. It's only wikihounding if you do so with the intent to repreatedly confront or inhibit the other editor's work. There is a lot of disagreement over whether Hugh's contributions have improved the articles he has worked on, or made them worse. There is nothing wrong with those in the latter camp following him around to clean up the perceived mess, as long as it's done in good faith for content-based reasons. I am not watching this page so please ping me if you want my attention.--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your broad brush assessment of my contributions to our project, I'm sure readers of this report will find your assessment helpful. I understand you would like to see me react in anger to your assessment. I understand to the reported user all my contributions are "questionable." I guess according to you my gross incompetence makes it impossible for anyone to WP:HOUND me and so it's open season on Hugh and I should just get used to it; after all, the reported user has yet to confront me with 2006 through 2013. By the way, I think I may have asked you this before, but I can't recall your answer, how many good articles do you have? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 02:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. This is pure straw man. I never said anything of the sort, and of course you know that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@ Dr. Fleischman - Thanks for your input, but the examples of wikihounding I supplied all showed Springee trying to "confront or inhibit" HughD's work. WP:HOUND does apply some caveats for fixing unambiguous errors, or small corrections, but it doesn't include tendentiously reverting someone's edits for the reason of "no consensus" or because of a disagreement about content. Sorry, but people subjectively considering his addition of reliably sourced information as a "perceived mess" is not excused by the wikihounding policy, and using a reason of "no consensus" is directly an example of tendentious editing, not to mention the repeated removal of reliably sourced information.Scoobydunk (talk) 04:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I did not say that Springee did or did not hound Hugh. I simply made an observation about the relevant policy since you appear to be misrepresenting it in this thread (suggesting that simply following someone around and reverting their edits is hounding, in the absence of any intent to confront or inhibit), as well as elsewhere. FWIW, I agree with you that "no consensus" is generally a bad reason for a first revert. It is one of my personal pet peeves. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe repeatedly reverting a user's edits is plainly considered "inhibiting their work". If I'm trying to add content to an article and it keeps getting reverted, then clearly my work is being inhibited. I used different diction, but the actions are synonymous. I also believe that the few exceptions WP:HOUND mentions clearly don't apply to an edit summary of "no consensus".Scoobydunk (talk) 16:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Request Admin Action - I don't understand why an admin hasn't dealt with Springee's behavior. There are over 8 pages that Springee followed another editor to and reverted their work. There are also 8 instances that show Springee's tendentious editing by citing "no consensus" as the reason for his reverts. Since this notice started, Springee has continued to make accusations in bad faith against editors who don't share his point of view. There is absolutely no reason why this ANI notice has gone unaddressed by admins.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

There's a perfectly good reason it's been ignored. These kinds of arguments also keep going to WP:AE (which at least has a word limit) and no one particularly cares because everyone can see what this is. I'm hardly uninvolved here but what I see is editors using ANI to snipe at each other to get the other side kicked out so they can take control of heavily political articles and whitewash or blackwash or whatever they want to do to them. ARBCOM gave you rules for those articles and gave you a method for it and it's not here. I suspect the cases at AE haven't gone anywhere so that's why you're here. Either way, while you're here, you're going to have to be more specific on what you want. Suggest an I-ban, a topic ban, a block, whatever and see where it goes. The fact that people watch the same topics isn't necessarily hounding and the truth is the whole lot of you have made editing here less pleasant for everyone who interacts with any of you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 13:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Ricky81682 - I've already made a recommendation above, but I don't see why it's my responsibility to make a recommendation. Admins normally know what kind of action is appropriate. Also, you're making a red herring argument when you say "people watch the same topics" unless you can prove the Springee was watching all of those articles. The 8 different examples of wikihounding I supplied had never been previously edited by Springee before, so to suggest he was watching them and not following an editor is unsubstantiated and unreasonable. Regardless, he was still purposefully inhibiting the editing of a another contributor. Let's also not forget the 8 examples of tendentious editing on top of that. It is my understanding that arbcom deals with problems that have already been addressed multiple times in WP:ANI, but still persist. So I'm required to bring this here first and this is the type of behavior that's suppose to be addressed here. Your comment also confuses me because it's very clear that you had no problem taking action against HughD and that Veritavenci guy, even to the point of violating wp:involved concerns, but are doing nothing to other editors who have violated multiple WP policies. There are over 16 examples of WP policy violations by Springee in the form of wikihounding and tendentious editing and there are clearly defined by diffs and it's very clear that they are getting ignored and have been getting ignored. Scoobydunk (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Look, up to you. And no I did nothing "even to the point of violating wp:involved concerns", I'm sure I've never even edited all those articles. Other than taking a cautious approach to a problematic new editor, I issued a single article topic ban for two weeks on one individual and then expanded it when the concerns expanded, two things that no one has overturned. I consider myself uninvolved as I have little care about any of these actual article content (and barely any more about the editors). Otherwise as I said I haven't gotten more involved but the point is this looks like the same tit-for-tat fighting from various editors. No one here has edited remotely appropriately. Fine, I'll support Springee's proposal for a one-month interaction ban between Springee and HughD (including the Chicago-style politics article) whereby both editors agree to not revert the other directly. If there's a dispute, start a discussion and make an edit request and let an admin or anyone else be a third-party. Reject the idea of a complete site ban as overkill. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it's grossly inconsistent to give VVUSA a permanent ban for harassment concerns and then support a 1 month interaction ban for Springee when there are numerous instances of harassment and tendentious editing. I've also already proven that Springee's behavior isn't limited to his interaction with HughD but has been directed at multiple editors and an interaction ban does absolutely nothing to address this behavior. No where did you address this fact in your support for Springee's recommendation and no where did you address the bad faith accusations Springee has levied against me in this Ani notice and how he's acted aloft to this serious evidence. I think it's also telling that you believe the actions of HughD and VVUSA get perma bans and topic bans, but when it comes to the side of their opposition you consider it to be "tit-for-tat". Not that I condone the behavior of the editors previously mentioned, but there is a clear bias in how admin's have been handling these issues despite multiple editors voicing concerns over Springee's behavior over the course of the last couple of months. Finally, my "involved concerns" pertains to your removal of Kochtruth's addition to an article. I know admin's aren't considered involved for behaving in strictly an administrative sense, but I feel your criticisms/implications of HughD's relationship to Koc/VVUSA create a strong case of bias and that VVUSA's block should have been left to someone who hasn't removed his content or made speculations about his username. I think issuing blocks on both sides of the issue would have removed any sense of admin bias, but that clearly didn't happen. Just my opinion and they're simply concerns.Scoobydunk (talk) 03:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Please tell me I don't have to explain the difference between someone who's writing dailykos account of being an "undercover agent" here accusing editors by name and what Springee has done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Let's see, over a dozen examples of harassment by Springee against other users, and only one example of an offsite article that's assumed to be connected to a WP user. FYI, whoever posted the article here on WP in an attempt to connect it to VVUSA, violated WP:Outing, yet I didn't see any action taken on that serious violation either. Regardless, they're both defined as harassment by WP policy and you've been clearly biased with your application of WP policy. Regardless, a comparison is irrelevant to the fact that Springee has violated multiple policies, multiple times, and absolutely nothing has been done about it. That demonstrates a clear bias among the admin community. Scoobydunk (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

This topic has twice gone stale (over 36 hours with no edits). I would like to ask that the 36 hour rule be applied and the topic closed. Springee (talk) 23:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Just as a point of order, there is "36 hour rule". The 36 hour time frame is when the old archivebot would move a thread to the archive. There is no solid rule as to when a thread is closed. If there are sanctions proposed, they should be properly closed by an uninvolved admin. Blackmane (talk) 12:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

We just need one more supporter for the Springee site ban and that's the majority here. 166.170.49.189 (talk) 13:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not a vote. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

one year site ban for Springee

These harassment accusations are no laughing matter. Interaction and topic bans do nothing. The only solution is to ban Springee completely for one year. If he learns his lesson then let him come back and edit here but content creators like HughD deserve peace so that they can work on building the encyclopedia. 166.170.51.218 (talk) 22:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

You've only made a couple of edits on this topic. What ID do you normally edit under? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:HUMAN. Some of us don't register. 166.170.49.189 (talk) 16:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:SPA, for which you qualify. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

That's not an accurate assessment. The contributor that you've responded to has had an account since mid July and has contributed to 3 different topics. The one proposing a site ban hasn't had enough time to establish his/herself as an SPA.Scoobydunk (talk) 02:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs yet again attacks IP editors. Why isn't he topic banned? (Why, indeed, is he tolerated on ANI where his inflammatory but poorly thought out comments often make things worse)82.132.226.101 (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

topic ban ricky81682

It's clear from above that this admin is not neutral in this topic. The idea that Kochtruth was deserving of anything other than a welcome and that HughD should be topic banned for welcoming a new user shows the extent of this admon's bias. 166.170.49.189 (talk) 13:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

You've come from out of thin air. What ID do you normally edit under? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't. I just reviewed the evidence here. 166.170.50.153 (talk) 10:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I was wondering why this IP seemed familiar. A user from this range has a very big bone to pick with Ricky81682 arising from a dispute on the World's Oldest People pages where they received near unanimous support for a topic ban, here. This IP, among others, is used by the indefinitely blocked user:Kochtruth, who was blocked by Ricky81682 back in August and has been raising all sorts of noise about him ever since. Blackmane (talk) 02:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

So is that an oppose? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

BaseballBugs yet again attacks IP editors. Why isn't he topic banned from ANI or IP editors?82.132.222.244 (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Time to move on?

Wow this thread is still live? This seems pretty stale now - I suggest that as long as Springee avoids following or pestering either Scoobydrunk or HughD in the near future, and as long as everyone involved makes an effort to let bygones be bygones and move on, then there's really not much left to be said/done here. If the problem crops up again, it can be dealt with then. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Or not dealt with then, like it isn't being dealt with now, or hasn't been dealt with the past 2-3 ANI reports that have been filed by multiple users. That's just inexcusable. I'm not criticizing your view, but it's clear that these issues have been dealt with lopsidedly.Scoobydunk (talk) 02:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Now that this has become a Kochtruth IP dumping ground can we please just close this up? Springee (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

maybe only a 2 to 3 site ban then. Something in the middle. 166.176.59.124 (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I think 2 to 3 month site ban works as well. 166.176.57.153 (talk) 19:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps an indefinite site ban for you? Yes that would be worth a new thread. Blackmane (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• Would an admin please close out this topic. It has dragged on over 2 weeks and seems to have been stale for much of that time. Most of the recent posts are KochTruth sock/meat puppets. Please close it out. Springee (talk) 05:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Administrator Impersonation by Qunera

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Qunera has been claiming to be an admin [151]. I told him/her to stop and explained the implications [152] to which Qunera altered my warning. Later, Qunera continued to post claiming to be an admin at which another user warned him/her again. Qunera recently put this on his/her userpage [153]. The contrib log shows that he/she is consistently claiming to be an admin while editing. The users edits themselves have not been significantly helpful to the project and the user does not seem to have any intention of stopping the disruptive behavior. Jcmcc (Talk) 04:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

That, coupled with other edits which introduced false information into articles, resulted in a WP:NOTHERE block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Qui nunc it per iter tenebricosum illuc, unde negant redire quemquam. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

That's Latin for "He's been sent to the Phantom Zone." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

That's pretty damn close. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Rajib56789's AfDs

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In last one hour, User:Rajib56789 has opened following AfDs and while there is nothing wrong in nominating a certain large number of articles for deletion in a short time, these all AfDs are not properly formatted nor are the creators informed. I can spend time in manually formatting these AfDs and informing creators and listing these on today's log. But turns out that I will be voting "speedy keep" on each one of them as these are frivolous AfD.

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajan Vichare
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Honar Sun Me Hya Gharchi‎
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Titwala railway station ‎
4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sangeet Natak
5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balika Vadhu
6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saath Nibhaana Saathiya
7. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dekha Ek Khwaab
8. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iss Pyaar Ko Kya Naam Doon?
9. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mann Kee Awaaz Pratigya
10. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Life OK
11. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ek Hazaaron Mein Meri Behna Hai
12. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dil Se Di Dua... Saubhagyavati Bhava?
13. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Navya..Naye Dhadkan Naye Sawaal
14. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yahaaan Main Ghar Ghar Kheli
15. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diya Aur Baati Hum

Can some admin action be taken here? Or should the AfDs be allowed to continue as per norms. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• All will be formatted. All those pages are promotional stuffs of private TV channel of India, which does not merit for standalone article.- Rajib56789 (talk) 07:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Then an easier way would be to start discussion for deletion of all articles in Category:Indian television programmes. You can save your time of not starting separate AfDs. #SarcasmAlert §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmm! And the one railway station is the height of promotion by private TV channels. (Wo)Man! Its a railway station where trains come, not a radio station! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The railway station I nominated after my previous comment. Exceptions are always there !!! Rajib56789 (talk) 07:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

You had created junk in Wikipedia. Some of the articles does not have a single citation. Rajib56789 (talk) 07:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh! Are you aiming for articles I created? They can easily be found on my page. Just simplicity for you. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Rajib56789, could you please do these one at a time until you learn how to do them properly? User:Fred Bauder Talk 07:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Removing AfDs, BUT...

• Since these AfDs are all malformed and many of the articles look to be notable, I'm going to delete them. As Fred Bauder says above, Rajib56789, if you are going to nominate an article for AfD you must do it properly. Instructions are at WP:AFDHOWTO. Also, you need to read the notability guidelines. Nominating an article which is a list of TV programs on a certain channel as "promotional" is nonsense.
• However; Dharmadhyaksha and the other editors of these articles, you need to concentrate on quality rather than quantity. Many have practically no sources (Rajan Vichare is a BLP with only one source, which appears to be a listing and was broken when I tried to click it - this is not acceptable in a biography), many are full of spelling and grammar errors, or sentences are unclear or use words that aren't defined ("The Sangeet Natak's originated in sangli by Vishnudas Bhave" - er, what?). Balika Vadhu is one sentence of prose, 10K of cast lists, and is completely sourced to the Indian TV awards. It tells us nothing about the show itself. So please clean up your existing articles before creating more. Thank you, Black Kite (talk) 07:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Vichare did have sources but was vandalized over time. Have reverted to a better version now. Sangeet Natak I will clean now. And rest all are not my creations in first place. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, I gathered from the conversation above that they were all yours and Rajib56789 was targeting you. Black Kite (talk) 07:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• So, after they are deleted, User:Rajib56789, if you are still willing, please pick out the worst one and nominate it following the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. User:Fred Bauder Talk 07:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Rajib56789, Is this in anyway related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vice Chancellors of the Aligarh Muslim University? I see that Dharmadhyaksha and TheRedPenOfDoom are the most active editors there and then this suddenly happens to articles that the two of them have some involvement with. —SpacemanSpiff 08:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Bingo SS! TRPoD was being targeted here. But wrong choice of articles. I would very well let go of these articles happily because no matter how much so ever efforts you put in there they are always vandalized and ruined. I left the TV genre just for that and I still admire and appreciate the thankless job TRPoD keeps doing. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Zachary Pincus-Roth

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can someone look at this. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zachary Pincus-Roth (I agree with the possibility two of these accounts are one person but add the allegedly useless to the list of socks. Most likely comes back to an older puppeteer/joker). duffbeerforme (talk) 12:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Joseph2302

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Joseph2302 is claiming that an enquiry about how to determine sockpuppetry, made at the Teahouse by Uk55, is racist because the latter noted that three (unspecified) editors "all appear to be British". This clearly isn't racism. Joseph2302 is also accusing Uk55 of harassment for the same Teahouse post. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why this needed an ANI discussion. As stated on that thread, I consider their impliction that "they're British, therefore they're the same person" to be offensive and racist, as it's the same as saying every American Wikipedian is a sockpuppet of each other. As a result, I believe my actions were appropriate. I recommend a speedy close of this discussion, as I have no more to say on the matter. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Uk55 acted appropriately, not naming any editors personally. You also misrepresent their presentation of the evidence, which was, in full: "All have fairly short editing histories (though of course, so do I), all appear to be British, all are making the exact same points, all are very hostile, and all have an uncannily similar writing style". That's not quite the same as saying "they're British, therefore they're the same person", is it? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

True, but there was no need to mention nationalities, if they'd mentioned geographical proximity and not "they're all British" then no-one would have been offended. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The new editor inquiring at the Teahouse was seeking advice about how to detect sockpuppetry. They listed several factors that suggested they may have encountered such a case, including (not limited to) the fact that all 3 editors seemed to be British. The precise quote is above. It was hardly a claim that, they're British ipso facto they're socks, and the reaction strikes me as hypersensitive. That being said, I agree that there's really little here for admins to do. It's bitey and silly but not blockable. JohnInDC (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate that this isn't grounds for a block, and I'm not calling for that. I just wanted to bring the issue here as opposed to it being thrashed out on Uk55's user talk page and at the Teahouse, due to the fact that the bitey nature of the comments might drive a new editor (and indeed other Teahouse guests) away. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

You were genuinely offended by this, Joseph2302? How did you even see it? Are you a regular at the Teahouse? You don't seem to edit any pages that Uk55 has been active on. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse is on my watchlist, I used to answer lots of questions on there when I was more active. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

And yes I was offended by the implication I believe was in that post. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Cordless Larry, I believe that Joseph2302 is at least a semi-regular at the Teahouse, i surely recall seeing him post there on multiple recent occasions. That said, i don't think the quoted statement was in any way racist or offensive, whether it is useful in helping to detect a possible sockpuppet might be argued, but it is at least a legitimate piece of evidence. Assuming they are not IP editors, a non-CU would have no way to know their geographic location, so nationality is a reasonable if broad proxy for location. Hardly probative of itself, but possibly adding weight to other evidence. I agree with JohnInDC above that there is no admin action to take here, except to caution Joseph2302 (who I generally find a sensible editor) not to be so quick to complain of "racism" on such a basis. DES ^(talk) 21:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, DES. Can I suggest that Joseph2302 removes his harassment warning from User talk:Uk55 and then we close this discussion? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for removing it, Joseph2302. I consider the matter closed. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bryce Carmony (talk · contribs)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Bryce Carmony (talk · contribs) is systematically going through articles and incorrectly changing "were" to "was." He's done this at The Beatles, Washington Redskins and Genesis (band). I've tried to reason with him, and this was his response [154]. Calidum 04:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually I changed the washington redskins from "are" to "is" not "were" to "was". Using were for a current team would make zero sense. "Genesis" was a band. If they called themselves "the Genesi" (plural for Genesis) you could make MAYBE a more compelling argument. I wouldn't say "the miami heat are" since they are one team and heat itself is singular. If there is a disagreement we can work it out in the article talk pages. Bryce Carmony (talk) 05:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

So in the case of British bands we use British english which treats singular bands as plural. however the Washington Redskins is not an article in British English so we would use is. This is why we use talk pages not user pages to discuss. Bryce Carmony (talk) 05:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

You are starting to edit war on various articles. You have been reverted at least twice by two different editors on Washington Redskins alone. Editing on claims of "NPOV" and "fringe theories" is not exempt from edit warring.[155] Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

No edit warring has occurred, I encourage you to participate in the talk pages and discuss if you disagree over an edit. we actually resolved it all. Bryce Carmony (talk) 06:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Er, someone look at the user talk history and block log. Just an institutional memory hint. Begoon ^talk 11:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Indeed I had noticed a bit of possible pointyness following on this last disagreement. JohnInDC (talk) 12:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. Bryce strikes me as here to do what Bryce wants, rather than anything else. And willing, or eager, to play games to get there. (a timesink). I'd just block him, indef, right now, but, hey, what do I know? Begoon ^talk 12:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

As someone who was involved in his previous kerfuffle I can see that this particular row has all the same characteristics - dogged insistence on his own particular idea of grammatical purity, aggression when challenged. Luckily, not my quarrel this time round, but it's worth noting that what finally persuaded him to start behaving reasonably, at least for a while, was the threat of an indefinite block. Andyjsmith (talk) 14:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Catharsis. Underused, IMO. Begoon ^talk 10:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

As a result of the foregoing disagreement, he has pointedly changed several U.S. sports team articles to the plural, contrary to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Plurals, which indicates that in the U.S., the verb accompanying a sports team typically follows the nominal number of the team name, restoring the plurals after the MOS was, err, pointed out to him. This is not the first problem with WP:POINT - link. JohnInDC (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

So block him, already. The tolerance for this kind of crap is the reason good folks won't edit any more. Begoon ^talk 13:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Notice how quiet he's gone? A massive swathe of edits (just see his contribs) and lots of shouting and then someone mentions blocking... silence. Don't be fooled, just read his talk and block history. IMHO this guy is like a neighbour from hell doing a spot of gardening - he tidies up a few leaves, then runs a mower right through your flowerbed and tries to fight you when you complain. But when you call the police he's as quiet as a mouse, says he was only trying to tidy things up, officer, and anyway the flowers needed mowing. Andyjsmith (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• Bryce Carmony in the past has blanked legitimate comments and denounced them as spam [156] [157] [158]. He considers other users following the policy of keeping block notices on his talk to be harassment [159] [160].. Granted these diffs are old but it shows that his inability to functionally co-operate is long-standing and not a temporary lapse. He has previously been blocked for trolling and pointy edits but, according to this ANI, has not changed. This thread on his talk page here shows him being silly, trying to make a British vs American English pluralisation issue into a dispute about fringe theories and NPOV. How long will we let him mess about? BethNaught (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Indefinitely, apparently. Welcome to wikipedia. Begoon ^talk 09:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

He's broken his recent silence with a crazy edit at Tunnel boom where he contends that physics is being used as a plural, which is odd enough, but then only changes the grammar in one place, leaving the rest of the article in the singular. This is just the kind of clumsy, hit-and-run editing that has got him into trouble in the past. Disruptive and completely unacceptable, especially while he's being discussed here. Andyjsmith (talk) 09:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I've given him a uw-3 for disruption. Andyjsmith (talk) 09:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

There are more physicses in this world than you will ever know... Obvious disruptive editor is obvious.

Hmm... Beatles ends in 's', let's disrupt that. Ooh, so does physics - I'm on it. See you at "mathematics", Bryce... Begoon ^talk 09:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• He has continued to make pointed edits contrary to MOS:PLURALS and claiming that "physics" can be plural, despite Wikitionary calling it uncountable in the sense of "science". He's contradicting his own grammar rules by this point. His edit summary in the last diff was unduly patronising. BethNaught (talk) 07:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

For tendentious and pointy editing often contrary to the MOS and for a long-term pattern of inability to co-operate, Bryce Carmony (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is blocked for a period of six months.

• Support because apparently we need bold letters to draw outside attention. He hasn't learned how to respond to legitimate concerns since his last appearance at ANI and he is continuing to display competence issues. BethNaught (talk) 07:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support. It's clear that attempts to discuss it aren't going to shift the "my way or no way" mentality. We've been here before, and he managed to avoid a site ban, but that escape just seems to have made him even more convinced that Wikipedia's rules don't apply to him. ‑ iridescent 07:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• Per my comment below, I now support indef-and-standard-offer rather than just a temporary block. ‑ iridescent 16:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support. He is convinced he knows best and has never listened to anyone else. He is a very poor editor and his attitude is disgraceful. Andyjsmith (talk) 08:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Contentious editing, edit warring, failure to communicate - perhaps two edits in 50 are constructive. He requires constant monitoring and is a detriment to the project. JohnInDC (talk) 13:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support We need a "proposal" now? Sisyphus'r'us. Siteban is obvious, but support this in the absence of common sense. Begoon ^talk 15:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

  Apparently so. I would also support a siteban, but I wanted to be sure at least something would happen. BethNaught (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I know, my apologies (...or, should that be "apology"?). My irony wasn't directed at you - rather the lack of action. Thanks for keeping attention on it Begoon ^talk 11:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• He is still making warring edits, most recently at A II Z. I now think only an indef ban is appropriate, otherwise we'll all be here again in 6 months time. Andyjsmith (talk) 07:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support indef. Bizarre pointy trollish edits. Softlavender (talk) 08:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support indef block - a look through Bryce's edits shows the positive contributions he brings are minimum and the frequent disruption over what I believe is trivia makes him a net negative to the project. After 6 months he can take the standard offer. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose None of my edits are against consensus, If you disagree with any of my edits (which it seems you do) you can use the talk page. Once a consensus is made I'm not one to go against it. A II Z is a English article, they use English spelling, so I propose they follow the English convention of treating a band as a collective noun. Just like we say "Genesis are" not "Genesis Is" If that is offensive please feel free to contribute to the talk page, we can find a solution. Bryce Carmony (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support : Bryce appears to be incapable of understanding the grammatical principles involved. This seems abundantly clear from my discussion with him on his talk page. A problem of "invincible ignorance". Afterwriting (talk) 23:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Response to Bryce Carmony's Oppose
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Since it appears to have slipped your mind, when someone did try to discuss this with you this was the result. AGF isn't infinite, and there is no explanation I can think of for your conduct there other than either intentional trolling or exceptional incompetence, and I'm not sure which of the two you would be more offended at being accused of. In light of None of my edits are against consensus, I'd support extending this to an indef since you're clearly never going to get the message. ‑ iridescent 16:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Exactly, the process worked, I realized that I was wrong and there is a well established convention there. Upon that discovery I didn't argue it and in fact changed "the Alan parsons project" from is to are to be in line with that convention, an edit that no one has had a problem with. The discussion process works excellently. Bryce Carmony (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC) I do not see any reference above to the very specific guidance, which is at Comparison of American and British English#Formal and notional agreement. UK bands like Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin use the plural were, and have hidden text:- <!-- This article is written in British English, which commonly treats collective nouns as plural. DO NOT change "WERE" to "WAS". --> I note that on some articles, such as A II Z (who came from Manchester) Bryce Carmony has been inserting the correct usage - were - and other editors have been reverting to the incorrect usage. I am not condoning, or trying to excuse, edit warring, but as an uninvolved outsider, it seems that people deliberately reverting to the incorrect usage are understandably winding him up. - Arjayay (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Interestingly enough I actually added the "<-- This article is written....." Text into the Beatles article to assist other editors from making the same mistake. the argument that I go against MOS or that I'm editing to disrupt both hold no water. The people who support banning me just dislike me personally I suspect, I know AndyJSmith holds a burning hatred for me at least. Bryce Carmony (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Here we go again. This is just like all the previous arguments with this guy - particularly the wall of words here, and on several previous occasions. Bryce Carmony tries every trick in the book to wriggle off the hook. Here, for example, we see ad hom arguments and personal attacks in an attempt to divert attentions from the real issue - his behaviour, not that of others. Targets on previous occasions were women and Irish editors. And if this obfuscation doesn't work he'll suddenly confess that he was wrong and it will never happen again, honest, and throw himself on our mercy - which we'll probably give. The simple fact is that time and again editors have brought him to ANI; time and again he has insisted on the rightness and purity of his campaign to correct non-existent errors in wikipedia, ranging from "unnecessary words" to the use of the word "criticism" and now to plurals, in defiance of objections from short-sighted, prejudiced editors, and he has been prepared to atack anyone who disagrees; time and again he has been blocked for edit warring and trolling; and after the block is over, off he goes again. Andyjsmith (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC) I assume that Andy's statements are made in good faith. I would encourage him to use the discussion process in articles. Like "The Beatles" that the outcome of which was an improved article. I have seen no evidence of an Edit war or a disruption in wikipedia. Bryce Carmony (talk) 23:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC) I just don't know. I'm not particularly familiar with this user's history or intentions, but it's a little perplexing to me that Bryce, while this proposal is here, is currently making quite a few are/is corrections which are probably wrong (I'm mostly thinking of the ones to American groups with a plural name). There are a whole lot of correct edits there too, so whatever I guess. I'm ambivalent about a block, but he does seem to go a little gung-ho with whatever he thinks to be correct, conventions or objections be damned. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Just because a word ends with an S does not mean we treat that word as a plural. for example the band Guns n Roses IS a band. (I didn't write is it was already is) as were the Wallflowers and many other american bands that are plural (like the black eyed peas, etc) We wouldn't say "Lucky Charms are a cereal" we write (and have written) that Lucky Charms is a cereal. I (and the NY Times) would say that the Washington Redskins is a NFL franchise. Now there is a major convention to say teams are not is, So my personal feelings aside I agree with consensus. you say I'm "gung ho" I would simply say I'm bold. any edit can be discussed if you would like to in any of the articles talk pages. Bryce Carmony (talk) 07:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC) You think Luck Charms is the name of a band? How ridiculous. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Lucky charms is the name of a band LuckyCharms just a heads up. Bryce Carmony (talk) 07:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Oh yeah, so it is. Thanks for setting me straight there. Maybe we need an article. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC) I think they'd miss General Notability Standards. But if you're interested you can do the research. Bryce Carmony (talk) 07:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC) I don't fancy an edit war over treating them as singular or plural, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Note: BC has recently engaged in a flurry of edits (more than 150 in a 6 hour period) changing plurals wherever he can find them and effectively sticking up two fingers at this ANI. But as ever he has screwed up many of the articles - all he's done is to change the lead sentence and ignore the rest of the article. I checked five of the most recent and in four cases he'd left the "wrong" grammar in place in the body of the article. Take a look at The Monkees, The Weirdos, Warpaint (band) and Voodoo Glow Skulls - the band is in the first sentence but later on the band release their first EP. This is so typical of the mess he leaves behind him. While we're all arguing earnestly with him about a mindless grammatical issue he's making pointy edits that damage the integrity of the encyclopedia. So just ban him, already! Andyjsmith (talk) 10:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I think therefore we need some sort of quick admin action here, even if it's only a 1 to 3 week block until this poll is assessed. Softlavender (talk) 10:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Also seems to be an ip from Ohio involved, e.g. Grateful Dead. Maybe just a coincidence? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Pure coincidence. Deadheads commonly refer to them as "they" "their" "were". Meanwhile, please need an insta-block while this poll continues!! Softlavender (talk) 11:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Summary & comment - For those who (understandably) don't want to be bothered figuring out what is going on here, the OP raised concerns about Bryce Carmony after BC walked up to the line of 3RR at The Beatles by changing verbs relating to the band to the singular form. When he finally came to understand that in British English, bands take the plural form of the noun (e.g. "The Beatles are..."), he pointedly began changing all lead verbs on a variety of articles relating to English bands to the plural. As Andyjsmith points out above, the pointiness in these edits is betrayed by the fact that BC is changing only the lead verb in those articles, and not any of the others. If the articles (incorrectly but harmlessly) reflected US custom, now they reflect two customs. It is plain to me (as well as to the string of editors who have commented above) that BC is not seriously concerned with building an encyclopedia, and should be blocked - soon - until he is willing to clean up his act. JohnInDC (talk) 11:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

That's actually a very over-simplistic summation regarding an editor whose entire edit history is full of trollish inaccurate edits intended to deliberately disrupt articles and the encyclopedia as a whole. This thread/poll hasn't been closed yet because not only is it ongoing, there also needs to be some clear decision-making and consensus-gauging about whether to block for six months or block indefinitely. Meanwhile, there does need to be a temporary insta-block so the ramped-up vandalism gets stopped. Softlavender (talk) 12:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I agree it's way worse than what I described - I just thought the thread had got lost here. I agree that a quick fix is needed. JohnInDC (talk) 12:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Many US bands like "The Wallflowers" use the correct is over the incorrect are. This entire discussion should be taking place in article discussion. The articles are written about singular entities. the bands they (the articles) are about. The title of a singular entity uses the singular. if I were to say "The Warlocks were so awesome in concert last night" I'd be reffering to the individual members of the band, which are treated in the article but are not the actual topic of the article. the Wikipedia article The Warlocks is about the band, which has a title, the title is... The warlocks. Frosted Flakes is a brand of cereal. Corn Flakes are yummy. There's a difference I'm not being disruptive I'm just following the style guide which says to use the correct verb. Bryce Carmony (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe folks feel they'd rather waste their time making one comment in "the entire discussion" here than waste their time making multiple comments at umpteen article Talk Pages? Your constant straw man comparisons with breakfast cereals is inappropriate and irksome. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

See there you would actually say "are inappropriate" because the word "comparisons" is plural. "Your comparisons are irksome" not "is irksome" but that's besides the point. If you want to argue that some band articles are about the bands and some band articles are about the members of the band you can make the argument I just don't think it makes much sense considering the policies on naming articles. Bryce Carmony (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support indef block. Clearly the user in question is not here for the right reasons. Calidum 18:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm here to make an encyclopedia, which is why I edit articles not throw stones in ANI. I assume your vote for a ban is made in good faith, but it's off the mark. Bryce Carmony (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I hate to be blunt, but if you're not trolling you're not competent enough to continue editing. I'm not sure which is worse and I'm not sure it really matters at this point. Calidum 00:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support indef block after Carmony responded to the discussion here not by calming down and backing off but instead by making another big flurry of edits on the exact same singular-vs-plural issue in the always-contentious area of musical band names. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support indef block I have only encountered Bryce Carmony's disruptive and grammatically incorrect editing for the first time today, but looking back through his contributions, the warnings on his talk page and his repeated refusals to tow the line with editor consensus, I'm appalled that this editor is still free to edit Wikipedia as he sees fit. I can only conclude that this user is not here for the right reasons. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 00:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support indef block Seems like someone who (perhaps subconsciously) enjoys drama, and provokes it when he can. Darx9url (talk) 03:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Scrutiny requested for block by NeilN

NeilN has just reverted some edits to User talk:Clpo13 having confirmed that what he keeps on his talkpage is up to him alone. No explanation for his move has been proffered. Clpro13 is busy for the next few hours and I'm posting on his behalf. NeilN's action appears to be unwarranted interference with an editor's userspace. 78.146.208.121 (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:Notnow did not apply for my RFA

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It was unfair. I was treated like a newbie who has 50 edits to mainspace. That edit warring was was inevitable because User:Softlavender and User:NE Ent misunderstood NOTNOW and reverted my RFA transclution. Most of the opposes are based on NOTNOW. That RFA was just unfair. That edit warring caused users to oppose me. I had a clean history(not only block log) until this RFA. It was closed by Cyberpower as Snow, of course, because many opposers misunderstood NOTNOW. They used NOTNOW and editwar as an excuse to oppose me because they couldn't find any problems with my contributions. They decided to oppose me just by looking at the edit count and account age not actually looking at my contributions. I want justice. Supdiop (T🔹C) 02:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that if you don't drop this, justice is exactly what you are going to get. Drop your stick, and your wounded warrior stance. As you have been repeatedly told, no one is going to get past RfA with less than 6000 edits (less than half of those to mainspace) and 6 months experience. Hell, Jimbo himself could not pass RfA with that short a resume. Your actions subsequent to the RfA have proven beyond any (not just reasonable, any) doubt that the RfA reached the correct decision. Go edit, drop the stick and move on. John from Idegon (talk) 02:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I disagree with the closure. Please unclose it and let the discussion continue. Supdiop (T🔹C) 03:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

What do you hope this discussion will accomplish? Given the current state of RFA, where users of many years experience are routinely opposed or rejected, it is impossible that your candidacy would succeed. In fact, the longer you fight this battle, the less likely editors will consider supporting a future RFA from you. I believe you are well intentioned and you sincerely want to help this project, but I don't think reopening this discussion will help you. Gamaliel (talk) 03:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I want the actions of those two editors to be discussed. Supdiop (T🔹C) 03:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

No good can come of discussing this further. The RfA is over. Let's all move on and get back to work. — Earwig ^talk 03:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Many of the comments on that page noted that NOTNOW did not apply, but those same people also opposed you. I don't think the possible misapplication of NOTNOW really changed the circumstances at all, people were still going to oppose you because they think you don't have enough experience, regardless of whether or not they think this particular concept applies. I suggest you take the advice here: Wikipedia:Not_now#What_not_to_do_if_your_RfA_was_closed_early. Gamaliel (talk) 03:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

That edit war did really changed the circumstances. If the edit war didn't happen, It would have been different. It made the atmosphere negative.Supdiop (T🔹C) 04:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Re-open or Restart my RFA. Thats how I will get my justice. Supdiop (T🔹C) 04:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

What do you think would have happened if that dispute did not occur? The end result was inevitable, your RFA was not going to pass, nothing would have changed. No one is going to re-open your RFA because it would not have passed and will not pass. I'm sorry that you feel aggrieved, but it's not the fault of those two editors, it's the way that RFA works currently. Gamaliel (talk) 04:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reply to Gamaliel

Some editors would have supported me if I didn't edit war. Those supporting votes would have swayed more editors to support. Notnow opposes would have been challenged by the supporters but unfortunately, editors refrained from supporting me because of editwar. Supdiop (T🔹C) 04:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC) That editwar was caused by the misunderstanding of notnow by those two editors. Supdiop (T🔹C) 05:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

No. I'm sorry but as other editors have told you, your RFA had no chance of succeeding. To think otherwise is fantasy on your part. We've tried to politely tell you this but you're not listening. If it was reset/reopened now I guarantee you would not like the responses. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

At least it will get real comments from the heart of the voters this time. Supdiop (T🔹C) 05:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Please don’t waste others' time. It is a time sink and you seem to acknowledge it here. If you'd like to take a break from editing, consider using Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer or ask an admin to block you. - NQ-Alt (talk) 05:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I want justice. I am also editor like you. I want to help the wikipedia. I acted like an asshole and I got punishment for that but I want justice. This is my last comment on this unless anyone asks me any question. If the community does not think that my RFA is flawed then I should accept it. I made many enemies during and after this RFA but I don't care. I could abandon this account and start a new career but I will not do that. From now on I will edit freely and express my views without fearing that it will impact my second rfa cuz there is no second rfa. Supdiop (T🔹C) 07:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

79.180.114.6

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This IP has written on my talk page one of the most offensive messages I think I've ever received. Basically, over the last couple of days I have been using AWB to go through the hundreds of articles on Israeli people that had for some years begun with an WP:EASTEREGG link to Israeli Jews under the word "Israeli"—i.e. "X person (born Y date) is an Israeli so-and-so ...". See my contributions page. I have received thanks for this from a number of users. I also two days ago posted a proposal on Talk:Natalie Portman about the perhaps problematic, and in any case badly scanning opening sentence.

This IP user, 79.180.114.6, takes strong exception to all of this. His contributions are the following:

1. He changed the opening sentence of the article Beram Kayal, an Israeli footballer of Arab background, so that he was introduced as an "Arab-Israeli footballer" rather than just Israeli
2. He posted at Talk:Natalie Portman that I "do[n't] want people to know about successful Jewish people from Israel" and that that is my "deal" in that article as well. Other users promptly defended me and he has not posted there again.
3. He posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, basically saying the same thing again and asking for all of my "vandalism POV" edits to be reverted. The conversation was closed within 20 minutes.

Now, this morning I woke up to find this on my talk page. Note how it's written in Hebrew to avoid being automatically reverted. I will copy the message below in the original Hebrew, and in English (translated by myself):

אתה אוטיסט בקטע רע

קשה לי להאמין שגייסו אותך לצה"ל אתה נראה חנון בעייתי ומציק

החלטת למחוק לכל הישראלים המצליחים את המילה "יהודי" כי אתה אוטו-אנטישמי

או כי ההורים שלך אחים? אולי זה סתם אוטיזם טהור? מקווה שתתאבד
— 79.180.114.6 (talk) 10:23 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1)

In English—punctuation errors preserved from his Hebrew:

You are an evil autistic

It's hard for me to believe they accepted you into the Israeli Army you're a troublesome and annoying geek

You decided to remove from all the successful Israelis the word "Jew" because you're an auto-anti-Semite

Or because your parents are brother and sister? Maybe you're just pure autistic? I hope you kill yourself.
— 79.180.114.6 (talk) 10:23 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1)

Charming! I'm so glad I gave two years of my life to defend people like this. Cheers. —  Cliftonian (talk)  06:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest that a patrolling admin revdel such an outrageous personal attack plus a block of the IP. Possible semi protect Cliftonian's talk page for a few days to preempt any IP socks. Blackmane (talk) 10:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Jeh on talk page of Physical Address Extension

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

(Comment by block-evading sockpuppet removed per WP:DENY. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Janagewen.)

(Non-administrator comment) The time stamp says 21 September 2015 (UTC), more than two weeks ago. What makes you bring up the subject now? Kleuske (talk) 08:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

(Comment by block-evading sockpuppet removed per WP:DENY. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Janagewen.)

This user has brought this up before on a different IP address. clpo13_(talk) 08:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Darx9url

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Darx9url was admonished for disruptive and disrespectful behaviour three weeks ago [161], but replied dismissively, "I wash my hands of this, not worth talking about."

Today Darx9url resumed the same sort of disruptive and disrespectful behaviour: [162] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.122.9.159 (talk) 08:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think that I'd call their edit to Austrian School disrespectful, although a little more discussion over why they removed content would have been helpful. Offhand I think I can see why they may have done this, as an IP recently added content that looks to be somewhat OR in tone. As for her warning at the murder article, that appears to be one incident. Other than a warning to discuss removal of content on the talk page (even if they've removed it), I don't particularly see where this user needs any true admin intervention at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• "somewhat OR in tone". What does it mean? And how is it possible to prove that something is not OR in tone? If you write inane things like this, how can you be a Wikipedia editor, not to mention administrator? 91.122.9.159 (talk) 11:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Here's an example:

"As a result, prices steeply rise in those indispensable items, while the total price inflation is subdued or even negative, because the total price inflation reflects the sum total of stagnant or declining wages and salaries. An economy's desperate need for inflationary self-stimulation signifies that the economy has overshot its energy resource base and is "freezing". Money buys heat. The society's elite is the primary recipient of the influx of the additional money. By means of monetary inflation, the U.S. Federal Reserve redirects the dwindling heat to the economic organism's core (i.e., to the society's elite), while sacrificing the economic organism's periphery (i.e., the lower and middle classes):"

This entire portion was unsourced and your justification for this was this BBC article on the effects of the cold on the human body and has nothing to do with economy. You cannot take something like that and use it to justify a point. That is why I said that you had been injecting original research into the article. It also didn't help that some portions of it were written slightly like an essay. The sources you used for this were better, but at the same time the way you phrased things was a bit casual, like the snippet below:

"A desperate need for inflationary self-stimulation signifies that the economy has overshot its resource base and is cannibalizing itself (prices creeping up relatively to incomes, pension funds disappearing) similarly to a drug addict selling things or not paying bills to support his addiction."

There was also the questionable addition of a picture from Alice in Wonderland, which was accompanied by this remark:

"As an economy becomes more and more resource-strapped, the sustention of even a zero growth in the quantity of supplied goods and services requires an increasingly higher monetary inflation."

Basically, why are you adding this image? How does it explicitly support what is being said in the article? Where has Alice in Wonderland explicitly been used to discuss economics in this fashion? Wikipedia discourages the use of random images to make a point in the article because this is something that can easily stray into OR territory. Adding this would require that Alice in Wonderland be used as a frequent analogy for monetary inflation and even then, you'd have to show that this image specifically has been used in order to clarify to the average reader why you're including it. You can't just add things willy nilly. At this point you have reverted this three times. Do not revert this again or you will run the risk of getting blocked from editing. Please discuss this on the talk page of the article before making any major edits or re-adding the material. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Kinda weird reporting to me WP:ANI for persistent disruption when the revert I made (per WP:BRD) was my first edit to the article in months, if not years. OTOH, the IP editor has been reinserting the same stuff multiple times after being reverted by several other editors. See [163], [164], [165], [166], [167], [168]. Smells like a bad sock to me. Darx9url (talk) 13:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

91.122.9.159, the quality of the edits is beside the point on this page. One revert does not constitute disruption, regardless of whether the revert was justified, regardless of any past history, full stop. In fact, the first revert is the R in WP:BRD. This debate should be on the article's talk page, not here. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This user won't quit removing content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Space.lion can't stop removing content at Aziz Sancar. It's a clear case of WP:JDLI. He won't refer to the TP when suggested either. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The article needs immediate page protection. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked this user for edit warring. Hopefully protection is not required, but will continue to monitor. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Fully protected one day a little over an hour ago. At least the fighting is confined to the talk page now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Grace Ann Dorney Koppel

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Grace Anne Dorney Koppel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

That article is copied almost word for word from a page on the Johns Hopkins Medicine website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.172.191.148 (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

A user has cleaned this up. Thanks for reporting, -- Diannaa (talk) 18:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Cleaned up a bit more as the biography section was also copied. Summarized the main points as most of it was PR fluff. Appreciate the report on this. Ravensfire (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

146.185.31.215

146.185.31.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Perhaps someone can be more persuasive in getting 146 to stop their disruptive editing which includes edit-warring, posting rambling edit summaries, and making baseless accusations. I came across the editor in the "Venus_Palermo" thread at the BLP noticeboard, then at Venus Palermo, where they refuse to stop restoring content that was appropriately removed originally by Fyddlestix on October 2. There are multiple warnings on 146's talk page. Czoal (talk) 05:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes it would be great if someone would check this out. I asked for the protection of the mentioned page, because there were words of genitals instead of names, inappropiate jokes, place of death of living person, disruptive editing, deletion of well sourced passages of career with external references, and so and so on. After I asked for page protection, 2 users started to delete exact same passages in synchron, supporting each other and threatening me. If something is not found to be well sourced, it has to be better sourced. But it is not even the case. The passages have external sources. Plus they are relevant about the person's career. In addition, this is an IP address which I obviously only use since 1 month. For some reason some people want to harm this page and instead of protection of the page, they start a deletion and slander campaign.146.185.31.215 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I have blocked Maggie.7537 for edit warring. She's obviously 146.185.31.215 and logged in right after the article was semi-protected. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps not surprisingly, that user has claimed to be related to the subject of the article in the past. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Neil. And great find, Fyddlestix. I knew that IP 146 had to be closely related to the the subject. But shouldn't there be a COI template on the article? And shouldn't both Maggie and the IP be banned from, or at least warned about, editing the article any more? Czoal (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

In April 2015, Maggie.7537 created an article about herself, Margaret Palermo, which was merged into her daughter's article, Venus Palermo. Czoal (talk) 16:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Possible spam links being added to websites about survey datasets

I've noticed that recently, numerous links to asdfree.com have been added in the External Links section of articles about survey data, e.g. Survey of Income and Program Participation. These links aren't really relevant to an encyclopedia article, but rather seem like advertising for the user's blog. While I don't know if the user is actually affiliated with it, his response to another (IP) user doesn't, in my opinion, provide enough rationale for why these links should be included in every article for which the blog has a topic. Fortranso (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• I warned them: these links are not acceptable. Drmies (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you. It looks like the website links to a personal page at ajdamico.com, so it definitely seems like the author of the blog and the WP user are one and the same. Fortranso (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) One thing, though, is that the second diff you posted took place back in April; moreover, s/he hasn't edited at all since June. I'm not sure anything else needs to be done here. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 21:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Ok, I'm happy to leave it at that, then. Should the links that are already in place be removed or blacklisted? fs (talk) 21:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
        • It's spam to promote personal software (all spam including free and charitable sites is prohibited) and should be removed. Have all removed now. On a sidenote, such a statistical tool can be written by every semi-capable developer in a few days. It's really not that extraordinary - the main work is to understand the incoming data structure. GermanJoe (talk) 22:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
          • It sounds like the user still has questions about this, so I suggested that he post here if he has questions. fs (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

88.106.237.173

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

88.106.237.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

An IP editor has been posting from multiple IPs over the last four to six weeks consistently against consensus and in todays batch of edits (many of which have had to be reverted) has become abusive. Several editors have tried to engage via talk-pages and he did enter into very limited discussion at Talk:Jim Clark, but basically has taken very little notice of what people have tried to communicate to him. His editing has been disruptive over a few weeks now and many involved in the F1 project feel that wit has been allowed to continue for long enough. Please can somebody advise how we should proceed? There is available a list of approx. 20 IPs he has been using, but the diffs must be possibly over 1,000 by now. Thanks for any assistance. Eagleash (talk) 17:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The notice placed on his (today's) talk page has been replaced thus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eagleash (talk • contribs) 17:40, 4 October 2015‎

I have given the IP a 72 hour block for being abusive. If they come back within this time let me know on my talk page and I will re-block for evasion. If they come back after this time and are disruptive let me know and I will look into it. HighInBC 17:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, if it follows the usual pattern there will be a drop off in edits until the end of the week when it will resume from yet another IP. Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 17:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Eagleash: How do you know it's the same editor? Is there a particular article or set of articles it targets? if so, I think longterm semi-protection, or semi-permanent pending-changes protection, may be the remedy. Softlavender (talk) 08:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes the articles involved are almost 100% related to Formula One, particularly, 1960s/1970s era and with British connections (Jim Clark, Graham Hill, James Hunt etc.). The editing habits are similar across all 20 IPs noted (flooding articles with images, starting articles in talk pages, fiddling with tables and so on) and the IPs are all from the same area in South/South West England. Members of the F1 project have been aware of his actions for a while now, as noted above and although we cannot be 100% sure, believe it is the same editor. Eagleash (talk) 09:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Softlavender, a particular set of articles is targeted. But the set is so big (and increasing every week) that getting them all under semi-protection is quite complicated. It's very obvious from looking at the IP numbers and the editing behaviour, that it's one and the same editor. If you look at the list Eagleash compiled, you'll notice that while the exact IP's are different, they all strem from the two same ranges. One is the 92.21 range and the other is the 88.106 range. All in all, I feel the only option left to prevent further disruption is a hard range block of those IP ranges. Tvx1 09:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

You're probably right about the hard rangeblock for those two IP sets.... Softlavender (talk) 09:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I have blocked the two ranges 92.21.240.0/20 (covers 4096 IP addresses) and 88.106.224.0/20 (covers 4096 IP addresses) for a week. I see you have already encouraged the person to start an account, which would sure make communication and education a lot easier. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all assistance. Eagleash (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Behavior by CoffeeWithMarkets

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

CoffeeWithMarkets (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

CoffeeWithMarkets is engaging is disruptive battleground behavior and personal attacks on the talk page of Kim Davis (county clerk) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (see [169], [170], [171], [172]). Also refactoring others' comments that were not violations ([173], [174]). They also were move warring on Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy which has now been protected by Zzuuzz. User was warned about behavior and has not stopped. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Other disruptive behavior includes claiming personal attacks when none exist (e.g., [175]) and IDHT and claims of persecution or coordinated harassment by others ([176], [177], [178], [179], [180]) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Up until now, I thought CoffeeWithMarkets was a pretty reasonable user. The behavior today, which has included personal attacks, defensiveness, badgering, irrational arguments, and edit warring strikes me as coming from someone who is experiencing a lot of personal stress and is lashing out as result. CoffeeWithMarkets should strongly consider stepping away for a while and coming back with a fresh perspective. This is an encyclopedia—it's just not worth getting that worked up over.- MrX 18:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Sounds like s/he should coin his/her username and have some coffee. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Not seeing any attacks, I see a frustrated user, but that's about it. Yeah, his removing your comment about voting was wrong, and him calling it an attack was also wrong, but I'm not seeing him attack you, also remember this article's contentious, so it's going to generate a lot of heat. This more looks like a case for dispute resolution. KoshVorlon 11:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any serious attacks on either side. It's a content dispute, sometimes they get heated. So far everyone here has been pretty civil. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Surprised to see this because I have been consistently impressed by the quality and tone of CoffeeWithMarkets' editing on many pages.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

HOUND, BATTLEGROUND, and NOTHERE block request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Per WP:HOUND, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:NOTHERE, I am requesting a block for TH1980 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This has been an ongoing issue since February. Please review the evidence below, provided by the victim Hijiri88 (talk · contribs) and edited by me:

Breakdown of TH1980's harassment of Hijiri88 over the last five months

22-27 December 2014: TH1980 and CurtisNaito (who had disputed with Hijiri88 on the Korean influence article in October) have friendly interaction on an unrelated article.[181][182][183] 2 February 2015: TH1980 posts a "support" immediately below CurtisNaito's comment, even though there was no specific proposal to "support" or "oppose".[184] 26 February - 2 May 2015: TH1980 shows up on the Korean influence article and reinserts text which Hijiri88 had removed months earlier.[185][186] 26 May 2015: TH1980 joins in a dispute between Hijiri88 and CurtisNaito and takes CurtisNaito's side without even reading the discussion (we were talking about whether a quote should be cited in Chinese, Japanese or English, and he randomly brought up a completely separate dispute).[187][188] 26 June 2015: TH1980 revisits an old dispute resolved over a month earlier to post an ad hominem attack against Hijiri88.[189] 31 July 2015: After Hijiri88 notices the above and responds, TH1980 posts another needless ad hominem attack on the article talk page.[190] TH1980, despite following Hijiri88 around, hypocritically requests that Hijiri88 leave him alone.[191] 9 August 2015: TH1980 joins in an unrelated ANI discussion to request that Hijiri88 be SBANned for three months, having gone through the entire history between Hijiri88 and Catflap08 (all his diffs pre-dated the IBAN), but cherry-picking the very few diffs that paint Hijiri88 as the one who should face sanctions (even though few others saw it that way).[192] 21 August 2015: TH1980 does the same thing he did on 9 August, this time supporting an indefinite SBAN.[193] 30 August 2015: TH1980 shows up on the History of Japan page and edit-wars/argues with Hijiri88 despite having never shown an interest in the page before.[194][195] 31 August 2015: TH1980 posts a pointless personal attack against Hijiri88 on CurtisNaito's talk page.[196] 9 September 2015: TH1980, in his first ever FAC post, suddenly shows up and takes the opposite side to Hijiri88 in the question of whether the Iwane Matsui article should be promoted.[197] 20 September 2015: TH1980, in his first ever GAR post, suddenly shows up and takes the opposite side to Hijiri88 in the question of whether the History of Japan article should be delisted.[198] In total, TH1980 has posted 32 times on ANI, and all of them were requests for sanctions against Hijiri88. It's not like he's an ANI regular, but somehow he always finds his way to ANI discussions involving Hijiri88. Since their first interaction with each other in May, 37/58 of all TH1980's article talk page posts have been in disputes with Hijiri88.[199] All 13 of his user talk page edits have been either Hijiri88-related or to remove Hijiri88's comments on TH1980's talk page.[200] Except for the above-addressed ANI posts, TH1980 has made 11 edits to the Wikipedia namespace, and 10 were Hijiri88-related.[201] Of his 74 article edits since May, 21 have been full reverts, partial reverts or manual reverts of Hijiri88's edits.[202] That's a total of 188 edits in all namespaces, with 112 being Hijiri88-related -- does he have nothing better to do on Wikipedia than hound Hijiri88?

I will also add that on 2 October TH1980 posted to an ArbCom case request between Hijiri88 and Catflap08.[203] Basically, if Hijiri88 is involved in a content dispute, TH1980 will show up and support the opposition whether they are wrong or right, and also appears on any Hijiri88-related ANI threads to request Hijiri88 be blocked. The fact that the majority of his edits during this timeframe are basically to harass Hijiri88 shows that TH1980 is not here to build an encyclopedia. I am pinging two editors who have also dealt with TH1980 during this time @Nishidani and Curly Turkey:. Hijiri88 is currently blocked, but if there are any comments he wants to add to this discussion before his block expires I can copy/paste them from his talk page. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 13:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

You should probably post this in the ArbCom case request. It's relevant evidence. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

(ec) I have often noted that both User:CurtisNaito and User:TH1980 are totally incompetent and should not be editing any historical articles regarding Japan. I say that as someone with a specialist knowledge of the field. Notwithstanding this, I have reserved some harsh comments for Hijiri, who is very knowledgeable but persistently argues the point with editors who show no capacity to listen to him, or others. In other words, Hijiri's problem is excessive intensity in dealing with people who should be ignored, which leads to a WP:TLDR flow whose only effect, on outside administrators unfamiliar with the details of the Japanese articles, is to buttress a glancing impression that he, rather than those he takes issue with, is the real problem. That he can't see this obvious flaw in his approach, is obvious, but it does not absolve the people with whom he has run-ins, since many others complain about their incompetence. A majority of competent editors are not, in the long run, going to support much of the editing abuse and incompetence from those two. User:TH1980 in particular, seems to follow Hijiri and, even if unvited, tagteam with Curtis. I have never been able to convince him of what WP:RS actually requires: his practice is to google a desired result, post it in, and stick to it. Sturmgewehr's evidence looks strong to me, and this problem should be addressed as a serious one. I'm too busy to provide the evidence diffs, but they are there on several pages where I had the same problems with these two, as Hijiri did.Nishidani (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Apparently there is a word count limit for ArbCom case requests, so I can't post this there. When the evidence page opens after the case has been accepted, and if TH1980 attempts to post his "evidence" there, then I will post this there as well. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 14:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

As a clarification, the ArbCom case is between Catflap and Hijiri, there does not need to be any logical connection in dragging in separate editors there. TH1980 is not a party to the case. This should be dealt with at WP:ANI, in my opinion. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: That's why we're here.. At ANI. And I already pointed out that the ArbCom case is between Hijiri and Catflap above. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話)

@Sturmgewehr88: I was referring to Ivanvector's comment, which seemed to suggest that they think that ArbCom is a better venue for this. If they meant that this should be listed at the ArbCom page in addition to WP:ANI, I agree with them. Though I think that is unnecessary/distracting unless CurtisNaito/TH1980 are added as party to the case. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. I don't want to get into yet another thread about Hijiri88, and I think that these two users' disruption is inextricable from the disruption caused by the two named in the ArbCom request, so they should go there too. It's relevant to what is sure to be Hijiri's defense. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose as this seems to me to at least raise rather clear questions of possible gaming of the system as per WP:GAME. The individual involved has made a statement in the case request, and there is every reason to believe that the case may be accepted shortly, considering that the current vote tally is 9 in favor of acceptance. I cannot see any good reason for someone to say, all of a sudden, that problematic behavior that has been, as per the opening comment of this thread, ongoing since February, now, all of a sudden, with the existing case about to be accepted, dealt with by a block of unspecified length, which might at least potentially make him ineligible to submit evidence to ArbCom directly. ArbCom in general deals with the behavior of all those involved, and, while I can see that perhaps this thread for some reason might be of interest to the ArbCom, I cannot see any pressing reason that it has to be dealt with here at this time. A temporary injunction regarding all those involved in the case and raising the concerns of the individual involved in the arbitration, would be to my eyes possibly more effective. Honestly, under the circumstances, at least to my eyes, the starting of this thread at this time is at least as much a concern as the long-term conduct it seeks to perhaps preemptively address. :*P.S. I also note the obvious statement made in the opening of this thread that the OP clearly and explicitly states that the evidence presented here was prepared by an individual who is currently blocked, and that might not unreasonably raise WP:PROXYING concerns of a sort. Also, I note that User:CurtisNaito's comment in the current request for arbitration starts with the sentence, "I am putting forward my name as an involved party," which seems to indicate that he considers himself an involved party. While the ArbCom has not yet decided, apparently, whether he is one, it certainly would be possible for Sturmgewehr88 to request the names of both be submitted for consideration as parties, although it may also be the case that at least CurtisNaito might specifically request the same himself if the ArbCom does not add him to the list of parties on opening the case. John Carter (talk) 16:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter: Pardon my ignorance, I am not too familiar with ArbCom, but do they deal with random people giving evidence who are not party to the case? I have never seen this kind of thing. As far as I know, the TH1980 issue is totally separate from the Catflap issue. The fact that CN wants to be added to the case means nothing, unless they are actually added to the case. Not to mention that this thread is not about CN, but TH1980. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

In most of the cases I have been involved in, one way or another, although I guess this might conceivably have changed recently, they tend to have said when accepting the case that they will review the behavior of all those involved. And, as per the statement I quoted above, CurtisNaito has apparently at least tried in a way to get himself included as a party to that case. Personally, I'm I think pretty close to my 500 word limit there, so I'm not sure I could officially add a link to this discussion to the request page without crossing the line, but I certainly would, as it were, have no objections to seeing this discussion mentioned to the arbs by anyone if they thought that it contained issues which might reasonably be addressed by the arbs in the case, perhaps particularly considering TH1980 has submitted evidence and on that basis might presumably qualify as "involved" in any event. But, yes, if anyone wanted to request the ArbCom perhaps clearly expand the scope of the case if and when it is accepted to clearly include the behavior of all those involved, which presumably includes those who have made opening statements, I don't think anyone would object to the request for clarification. John Carter (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@John Carter: Of course you oppose. The only thing this ANI thread has to do with the ArbCom case is that TH1980 only gave a statement there to harass Hijiri and is further evidence of the ongoing harassment. Your assumptions of bad faith are uncalled for. The "pressing reason" that I started this thread is that I actually had the time to do it today. I had planned to do this a month ago but life got in the way. And so what if he can't "submit evidence directly"? If he gets blocked it wasn't for no reason. Even if he was blocked, he could still pass on his "evidence" to a nice guy like you who'd be willing to paste it for him. And I'm trying to stop something that's been going on since February "preemptively"? Do you not know what "preemptive" means? I could equally accuse you of gaming, since you only oppose blocking a wikistalker so you can have one more !vote against Hijiri. And honestly, Hijiri will probably receive a lengthy block from ArbCom, but so will Catflap. Go study the above evidence I presented before you comment here again and claim that TH1980 has done nothing wrong. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Sturmgewehr88: The frankly disgusting and completely unsupported jump to conclusions regarding my motivations for taking part in this discussion is noted. You not only made assumptions of bad faith, but rather explicit statements of judgmental bad faith. Your conduct has rather regularly been at best questionable itself. John Carter (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter: I have asked on the ArbCom case page to clarify the scope. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter: I copy/pasted the evidence from his talk page and modified it under my own free will. Enough with the WP:ABF. And why are you trying so hard to tie three separate issues together? CurtisNaito and TH1980 have edited together, but CurtisNaito has nothing to do with Catflap. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Sturmgewehr88: Regarding assumptions of bad faith, in your case, please read WP:HYPOCRISY. John Carter (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

You have made it clear to me in the past that you have Hijiri's e-mail address, as I was told to send some of the material I had gathered about Kenji Miyazawa to you which you might then send on to Hijiri. That being the case, the possibility of some sort of off-wiki collaboration is certainly possible. And, honestly, no one said you didn't do it of your own free will, as I cannot see how you could be literally legally forced to do it, which would be the only potential way it could not qualify as being "free will". However, the timing is more than a little interesting, the fact that Hijiri was, clearly, gathering material to be raised somewhere is interesting, particularly considering that there is a pending arbitration regarding his conduct in another matter. Also, honestly, considering that the existing block on Hijiri88 is due to expire from around 51 hours from my writing now, about 4 hours after your original post, there is also I believe a very serious question why you felt it required that this conversation had to be started now, rather than by Hijiri88 himself in about 2 days time. The only thing I can really see that might be different now than then is the possibility that the ArbCom case might perhaps easily be opened in the intervening time, and being blocked now might impact his ability to present evidence. John Carter (talk) 17:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter: In this case I actually did communicate with Hijiri via email. I informed him that I intended to open an ANI thread against TH1980 and asked for him to compile evidence for me, which he did. This was a month ago. Then he pasted the evidence to his talk page a few days ago. I will gladly forward the original email if that's what you'd like. In short, I had this evidence from before he was blocked, so all your crap about proxying is out the window. And why didn't he start this ANI thread? Because he thinks TH1980 will leave him alone eventually and I think otherwise. And again, if he gets rightfully blocked and still wants to present evidence he can just pass it on to you. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Sturmgewehr88: So, let me get this straight. On 9/21, the date on both the e-mails in the e-mail I received, you exchanged e-mails with Hijiri88 regarding TH1980. And you saw a similar collection of evidence by Hijiri88 on his talk page a few days ago. And, despite your having once again degraded into assumptions, none of what I see above really provides any good indication to me why you felt it necessary to start this as a separate matter here at this time. I realize that you seem to have little experience with ArbCom, and that you seem to rather quickly degrade to vulgar, insulting, judgemental language with little if any need for prompting. Also, under the circumstances, taking into account Kingsindian having raised the point at the ArbCom case request case, I think it might well be reasonable to suspend any further commentary here until the arbitrators indicate there the scope of the case. If the behavior of all is considered, as I certainly believe may be the case here, it would probably be in your best interests to forward that e-mail to the Arbs, considering it addresses the concern I had raised. John Carter (talk) 19:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps, the discussion about ArbCom could be taken there or moved to a user talk page? I'd like to hear from TH1980 but he hasn't edited today. Who emailed who and when they emailed whomever is irrelevant to this complaint. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. And I would particularly be interested in his reasons for making a statement there, and his input on whether it was, as Sturmgewehr88 indicates above, primarily or exclusively for purposes of harassment. John Carter (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that arbcom is going to have to look at this whole mess, especially since this seems to be evidence gathered by one user in that case, and used by another against a responder to the case. The original, almost exact evidence can be found hatted here User_talk:Hijiri88#Advice.3F. AlbinoFerret 20:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose pending ArbCom including TH1980 as a party to the case request, and a full investigation of everyone's conduct. This is a procedural oppose due to the case, although it also concerns me that this occurred immediately following the case request filing and admittedly came from Hijiri via StG, and it's been Hijiri's defense before that their conduct is excusable in light of other users' actions. Let ArbCom handle this. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Hijiri88 is the one who has been stalking me. He immediately reverted a reliably-sourced addition I made to the article Korean influence on Japanese culture[204], and then added me to his attack page of enemies.[205] I don't know why Hijiri was not sanctioned for creating an attack page targeting me and many other users. Then he showed up at the article about "The Magnificent Seven" (1960), even though he had no interest in this article before, just to revert another reliably sourced edit I made.[206] Whenever I point out Hijiri88's stalking of @CurtisNaito: and Catflap08 he threatens me, like this time where he says "You can count on me seeing to your receiving harsh repercussions for this in the near future." He has left a half dozen harassing messages on my talk page like these.[207][208] He is still following me around like when I edited the article "Twilight Zone Accident." Hijiri had no previous interest in this article, but still appeared right after me in order to modify the edit I made.[209]TH1980 (talk) 00:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

One more thing: I posted at Arbcom for the same reason I commented on other threads involving Hijiri88 and Catflap08. I am concerned about Hijiri88's behavior and think it is a similar pattern to what I experienced. However, I am willing to become an involved party at Arbcom if the arbs believe that I should be involved.TH1980 (talk) 00:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - Based on the evidence TH1980 has presented, I think it's clear that Hijiri88 has been stalking TH1980 at least as much as vice-versa. I'm somewhat concerned about the timing of this case, because it is being brought to the administrators' noticeboard just several days after TH1980 posted evidence at Arbcom and expressed concern that Hijiri would retaliate against him for doing so.CurtisNaito (talk) 02:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Procedural comment Although the open Arbitration request is primarily between two parties, ArbCom has the remit to bring others in as parties. In this request, a very large number of parties were added but then removed after some discussion. However, the committee clearly stated that they may reserve the right to add parties as they saw fit. Apart from Nyttend who is the filing party, John Carter is also included so implying that the Arbitration request is purely limited to Hijiri and Catflap is demonstrably incorrect. Given the past history, there is a likelihood that others such as TH1980, Sturmgewehr88 or CurtisNaito, may be included in the case. I recommend that this ANI be closed for the time being as the material is related to the case request. The last thing needed is second venue. Once Arbcom formally opens the case and finalises the involved parties, then, if necessary, this can be revisited. If the parties mentioned here are included in the case then Arbcom findings are likely to include them. So for now, I too oppose any sanctions be levied on TH1980. However, I would not oppose a reopening of this ANI after the close of the Arbcom case Blackmane (talk) 02:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• Per Blackmane's above comment, I would like this thread to be closed/put on hold until the ArbCom case is closed. If ArbCom does not deal with TH1980 as an involved party, then I will reopen this thread sometime in the future. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

79.180.114.6 / 79.181.151.160

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This charming gentleman who got blocked for a week for putting outrageous personal attacks on my talk page, 79.180.114.6, is back and using a different IP address: 79.181.151.160. This latest message is a long, bigoted ramble:

אתה עדיין ילד אוטיסט ומכוער שכל מה שיש לו בחיים זה תסמונת סטוקהולם כלפי האויבים שלו. אל תחזור לישראל, אוטו-אנטישמים לא רצויים פה. תנסה לדבר עם צאצאיו של היטלר אולי יסדרו לך כיסא של כבוד על כל השנאה העצמית והגזענות שלך נגד העם היהודי.

מילא העריכות שלך היו הגיוניות, אבל הם לא:

• ערבים בישראל מזדהים בתור ערבים שגרים בישראל, לא ישראלים.
• דרוזים שגרים בישראל קוראים לעצמם דרוזים-ישראלים, לא רק ישראלים.

אם היית טורח לדבר עם אנשים מהאוכלוסיות האלה היית רואה שאתה עושה להם עוול ופוגע בזהות הלאומית הייחודית שלהם כשאתה מאלץ וכופה על מי שגר בישראל ויש לו ערך בויקיפדיה להיות חלק מעם אתני אחד שלא קיים. זה לא המצב בשטח, אף אחד מהקבוצות האתניות של בני המיעוטים לא מגדירה את עצמה כ"ישראלים" בלבד. הם לא מבקשים, והם גם לא רוצים.

• יהודים שגרים במדינת ישראל לא מתביישים להיות יהודים.

הם לא כמוך עם תפיסות גלותיות של התנצלות בלתי פוסקת על זה שהם נולדו יהודים. הם גאים בזה. אנשים כמוך שמנסים למחוק את הזהות היהודית- הם הגזענים.

אתה סתם ילד קטן שבא לפה לשנתיים וחושב את עצמו איזה חכם שיכול לפתור את כל הבעיות במזרח התיכון. אתה לא. זה הסיבה שאתה תמשיך לערוך דפים של ויקיפדיה, ובחיים לא יהיה לך ערך משלך.
— 79.181.151.160 (talk) 22:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Or in English (again, grammar errors etc retained from the original):

You're still an ugly, autistic child whose whole life is Stockholm syndrome towards his enemies. Don't come back to Israel, auto-anti-Semite you're not wanted here. Try to talk with Hitler's descendants maybe they're arrange you a chair of honour for all your self-hatred and your racism against the Jewish nation.

Many of your edits were reasonable, but these aren't

• Arab Israelis identify as Arabs who live in Israel, not Israelis

• Druze who live in Israel identify as Druze-Israelis, not just Israelis

If you bothered to talk to people in these communities you'd see that you're doing them an injustice and hurting their unique national identity when you impose on those who live in Israel and who have a Wikipedia article to be part of a single ethnic group that doesn't exist. That's not the situation on the ground, none of the minority ethnic groups identify as "Israelis" only.

They don't request it, and they don't want it

• The Jews who live in the State of Israel are not ashamed to be Jews.

They aren't like you with the diaspora concept of continual apology for being born Jews. They're proud of it. People like you who try to delete the Jewish identity—they're the racists.

You're just a little boy who came here for two years and thinks he's so smart he can solve all the problems of the Middle East. You're not. That's why you go on editing Wikipedia pages and will never have any value of your own.
— 79.181.151.160 (talk) 22:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, charming. —  Cliftonian (talk)  04:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

At the very least, they should be required to do their own translation to English. This is the English language Wikipedia, all personal attacks must be in English. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Escalating into Godwin's with attack number 2? That's a quick one. Surely this warrants a possible range block plus talk page protection. Blackmane (talk) 05:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Seconding the talk page protection. clpo13_(talk) 05:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support a long term block (indef not being allowed for IPs) and a range block. Also support temporary page protection. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk page semi-protected for one month. Materialscientist blocked the latest IP for 31 hours. KrakatoaKatie 06:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

This issue looks to be resolved. Are we okay to close this? Or are there additional questions/concerns that need to be discussed? ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I think this can be closed now. If the person persists I'll make a new thread here. Thanks everyone for all your help. —  Cliftonian (talk)  07:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Was: IBAN. Is now: lame edit war

Frankly I think this edit and particularly its edit summary have strayed over the line into WP:POINT (to say nothing of WP:LAME). I can't make up my mind whether this is blockable idiocy or just idiocy though. Guy (Help!) 08:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

So you're calling the editor an idiot, and wonder if you should block them... for what? A personal attack?! Is this thing on? Doc talk 08:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

For iBAN violations, Doc. And his comments were re editing behavior, not re a person. You're not helpful here and seem to want to kick up drama - why don't you shoo!? IHTS (talk) 08:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Not helpful to you maybe. That don't mean much to me. Doc talk 09:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Guy your two mentions of "idiocy" should either be clearly substantiated or struck. See idiot, idiot definition and WP:CIVIL. I find it painful that you start with mention of IBAN and then introduce discussion like this. GregKaye 13:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Ask yourself this. Who does more to improve the encyclopedia, someone who finds original sources, cites them, and generally puts a lot of time and effort into improving an article, maybe even up to GA standard, or someone who interferes with this work by carrying on a 2 year old feud and sniping from the sidelines? Not to mention admin shopping, you're the third he's tried. Damn right it's lame, as is this thread. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Ask yourself this: do we give a toss? Your edit comes across as petulant and motivated by the identity of the editor not the actual content. And, to be absolutely clear, the idiocy is bilateral: you are both behaving ridiculously. Guy (Help!) 09:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

So you don't give a toss about improving the encyclopedia. OK. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

No, I just don't give a toss about self-serving excuses. Every single restricted editor ever has probably thought at some level that they were improving the encyclopaedia. The whole point of restrictions such as IBANs is that the editors are engaged in good-faith editing - otherwise they'd simply be blocked. Guy (Help!) 10:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

^ "...the idiocy is bilateral: you are both behaving ridiculously". What a cop-out. Keep calling editors "idiots", as an admin. It will make us all look swell. Doc talk 09:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh good, a one-man peanut gallery. Guy (Help!) 10:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

For the record, the edit in question, not only an intentional iBAN violation, was not an improvement but a disimprovement. (I have the hardcover, out-of-print book. I expect few others have it. In it, Lasker says Black's move 15...d2! is "better", not "probably the best". Any chessplayer knows the difference. So the edit actually is inconsistent with the source.) IHTS (talk) 09:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

So, despite what Guy says, you are not behaving ridiculously, and MaxBrowne is. That clarifies a lot! Doc talk 09:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Wow, IMO, this thread just gets worse. This is not normal for AN/I. GregKaye 13:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

On 26 Dec 2013 IHTS inserted a wiklink to "Checkmate". On 28 Aug 2015 MaxBrowne removes it. WP:IBAN clearly states: editor X is not permitted to "undo editor Y's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means);" MaxBrowne has therefore violated a i-ban they requested. NE Ent 09:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

NE Ent! Yay! Thankfully you've come in to save the day. You, frankly, rawk!!! Doc talk 09:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Somebody clearly has a lot of time on his hands. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

About that particular edit, I saw it too previously, but let it slide because it was so minor (and probably an improvement by the other editor). But the three incidents of overlaying text I added, I did/do object to, they haven't been improvements and now a disimprovement. It's true iBAN was never something I wanted, advising that it effectively can become a roving topic ban. (And duh, that seems to be the frustration at hand, then wanting to have it both ways.) IHTS (talk) 10:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

"I want the terms of the IBAN, and the consequences of violating them, to be very clearly spelled out to avoid any gaming of the system. The terms being: (1) No posting to each others user page or talk page (2) No replying to each other in discussions (3)No referring to each other directly or indirectly anywhere on wikipedia. (4) No undoing each other's edits (but we can edit the same articles so long as we keep to the terms of the iban). Basically as described in WP:IBAN and WP:BANEX. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)". IHTS (talk) 10:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, by this stage I think you are both gaming the system. The IBAN should either be vacated or enforced, and in this case enforcement will almost certainly lead to blocks of both of you. Guy (Help!) 10:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@JyZ/Guy, you openend this ANI on the basis of a revert which was intentional violation of iBAN (which was also, as shown, not an improvement but a disimprovement). How does one go about asking for enforcement of an iBAN they never wanted, when there is intentional flippant violation of it, without being accused by you of "gaming the system"? IHTS (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

All the edits complained about were made in good faith with the aim of improving the article, and were certainly not done with any intention of insulting, annoying or in any way "interacting" with the other editor. I don't think it should be necessary to search through the history of an article just in case an edit I'm about to make may overwrite some text written by an editor I'm in IBAN with 5 years ago. And for the record, I won't object (and haven't objected) if this editor in good faith overwrites some text I happen to have written in the past. Because I'm not petty like that. The point of an IBAN is to prevent disruption, not to enable petty point scoring and drama-mongering. The IBAN was imposed at my request because the constant sniping and outright abuse I was receiving from this editor was becoming intolerable. He is now using the IBAN as a weapon to snipe at me. The last edit I made to that article - sorry about that, but when you're working hard to make a good article and someone else just wants to make a nuisance of himself and start drama - it's easy to act hastily. Finally I note that this admin has previously told me "a plague on both your houses", and indicated that he "doesn't give a toss" about my content creation. He previously closed an ANI thread on the present issue inappropriately and prematurely, before it had been properly resolved. He is definitely WP:INVOLVED, and should not be the party to impose any blocks or even warnings. Neutral admin eyes are needed for this. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

MaxBrowne Can you see that an edit summary as: "Go to ANI or get lost" would better have been phrased differently? I see a potential here for a block having only considered the issue of civility but in a timespan of hours or days. GregKaye 13:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

A single edit out of context does not tell the whole story. This is an editor who has intentionally violated and expressed his contempt for the IBAN numerous times. Despite the IBAN he has continued to find ways to niggle me. This current excercise in petty point scoring seems to be aimed at getting the IBAN lifted, which I vehemently oppose as I have seen no change of attitude from this editor, just the same petty argumentativeness. MaxBrowne (talk) 14:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I'm the one on receiving end of petty sniping in editsum, and in this thread as you can see above, besides numerous times elsewheres, by the other editor, all while an iBAN is supposedly in place. Also the edit at Chess included undos of texts I'd previously written, which I also let slide. IHTS (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The edit summary is clearly a violation of the interaction ban between MaxBrowne and Ihardlythinkso, and, thus, on its own, to my eyes is sufficient cause for a block of some length. It seems to be the first violation of the I-ban (correct me if I'm wrong, of course), so it could reasonably be a short one on that basis. Having said that, the at best dubious civility of the comment could not unreasonably lengthen the block. I might say three days in this case, maybe? John Carter (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

If you ignore the revert, which was intentional iBAN violation, then might you be encouraging more of same in future? IHTS (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

My apologies for the phrasing. I wasn't ignoring the revert. But, for the first violation of an i-ban, I think the threshold is somewhat lower. In this case, I guess I was figuring one day block for the violation. The language, over and above the factual reversion, is I think cause enough to lengthen the comparatively short first block. Of course, if others think that the "base" block of one day isn't long enough, and I can well imagine I am not current on such things, no longer being an admin myself, I could reasonably guess it might be longer, although I would still think that the language used in the violation is sufficiently concerning to extend the "base" block to some degree. John Carter (talk) 20:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarify. I don't know why these iBAN violations can't be handled by admins independent of ANI. Why is wide participation needed when a single admin can do something to enforce iBAN when there are violations? I asked admin Blade for help to stop the violations. He didn't. I brought to attention to admin JyZ/Guy that the revert was inconsistent with his previous ANI close. In response he opens this ANI about the revert, then without cause changes course to bad-mouth and recommend blocks. When he was at liberty to simply take his own action, or discuss with me at at his Talk. People talk about the virtue of minimizing drama & disruption; however, their actual behaviors seem constructed to maximize it. IHTS (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The ANI thread I raised earlier was to complain about this edit, which was a direct revert of my edit and a clearcut IBAN violation. Despite my calm language, the admin, the very one who raised this thread, refused to take any action and told me "stop bickering". This edit also directly addressed me in the editsum and so is also a clearcut IBAN violation, and was a partial revert of this edit which I'd made. Sorry, I shouldn't have acted as I did, I guess I should have raised another ANI - after my last experience though I didn't have much hope that anything would get done. All of the drama is being initiated by the other party, and unfortunately facilitated by this rather uncivil admin, who should recuse himself from any further involvement in this thread. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

And you respond by continuing to revert right back. You are clearly an intelligent person, why are you unable to see that all you are doing is making it impossible to say that X violated the IBAN or Y violated the IBAN, but only that both X and Y violated the IBAN and are now behaving like kids called before teacher after a schoolyard fight? It is ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. Guy (Help!) 23:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The word "continuing" is not accurate here since I have not previously done that. You were wrong to close the previous ANI before the issue had been properly resolved; this led me to take things into my own hands instead of raising another ANI like I should have done. You were also wrong to initiate the current ANI given your "involved" status. You initiated this ANI with an incivility, and have continued in the same vain. If anyone deserves to be blocked from this whole sorry business it's you. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

This forum (ANI) shouldn't be used by an editor in iBAN, to make derogatory remarks about another editor they are in iBAN with. That isn't "gaming the system"?! I'm not allowed "equal time", I have plenty to point out if I were, but also have no desire or taste to get into it. This one-sided slamming should be stopped. The editor did this previously in a previous ANI too, so much so that a neutral editor created a new essay about it, that an ANI about iBAN violation is no excuse for making incendiary comments about the other editor. (I can't put my finger on the essay at the moment.) IHTS (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Now the user is attempting to re-hash in this ANI, a topic (revert) addressed in a previous ANI (now closed) that they opened on it. (I'm supposed to respond all over again here, when I completely already responded there?!) IHTS (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

It's real simple: iBAN disallows undoing one another's edits. (The editor has claimed they can ignore iBAN because they have been making improvements to the article, and even elsewhere claimed WP:IAR as justification for undoing my edits. But in the three cases of undoing my edits, two weren't improvements [just roughly equal quality copyedits], and one was a disimprovement [documented above]. And at any rate, WP:IBAN doesn't exempt undoing one another's edits if one editor is "trying in good-faith to improve an article". The editor has claimed that checking the article history prior to making changes is too burdensome ["I'm not going to check every edit to see who originally wrote the text 2, 3, 5 years ago. Because I don't care. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)"]. But I never suggested the editor do that. Even though, again, WP:IBAN doesn't exempt an editor on that basis. [Even though if in their shoes I'm sure *I* would check article history. Otherwise my expectation would be that I'd face an immediate block by an admin like Sjakkalle or Chillum who have shown partisanship when enforcning iBAN against me, even when what was enforced does not appear in WP:IBAN, and I carefully read WP:IBAN in order to be in good-faith compliance.] That is why I put sections up on article Talk, to draw notice that an edit was undone, so the editor could know, and facilitate them restoring it. But that didn't work. So I restored one of two edits which had been undone, drawing attention in editsum that the editor's undo was contrary to iBAN. That resulted in the user opening the previous ANI with complaint I violated iBAN. JyZ/Guy closed it as "no violation". Then the editor undid a third edit of mine at the same article, I put a notice on Talk again, and restored my edit, again explaining via editsum that I was restoring an edit of mine that had been overlaid contrary to iBAN. The editor reverted my restore, telling me in editsum to "get lost". I consulted admin JyZ/Guy about it, and without warning or clear purpose, they opened this awful ANI.) IHTS (talk) 09:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Even though the editor has clearly violated iBAN three times by undoing three of my edits, including reverting me when I subsequently restored one (Jyt/Guy's opening of this ANI), I disagree w/ John Carter that the editor should be blocked. (Blocking is supposed to be preventative, not punative.) Instead, the editor should simply be instructed where they fail to understand what can and can't be done re WP:IBAN. And the editor s/ be instructed to not interfere if I post to Talk about an edit they overlaid, and I subsequently restore it. (No plan like that is supported by WP:IBAN, I am suggesting to make easier so the editor needn't check article history, and needn't restore the overlaid edit themselves [even though they should; I know I would if in their shoes]. Have done this only when the overlay was either not an improvement, or was a disimprovement; again to make things easier. And as mentioned that is also something not provided for at WP:IBAN.) IHTS (talk) 10:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

"I'd face an immediate block by an admin like Sjakkalle or Chillum who have shown partisanship when enforcning(sic) iBAN against me"? Really? I blocked you exactly once after there was a clear community consensus to do so. Not only am I not "partisan" against you, I had to look up what you were talking about because I did not even remember you. Chillum 17:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Bull, Chillum. You've shown extreme partisanship/favoritism. If you are that degree of self-unaware, you should resign your tools. IHTS (talk) 00:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Diffs please? A bit of evidence would do wonders to improve my awareness and the awareness of others. It is hard for me to show partisanship/favoritism when I forgot who you even were. Perhaps you are not as big in my mind as you imagine yourself. Chillum 15:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion you want doesn't belong here, Chillum. And please believe, if I ever get a notion of self-"bigness", it'd never be gauged by anything whatever to do with the likes of you. (The simple fact is, if *I* were an admin, I'd be organized sufficiently to remember, or easiliy find, extensive dialogues I've had, with anybody, big or small would be irrelevant. [But that's just me.]) IHTS (talk) 03:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The way forward

Let's address the central issue here. What may I or may I not do on an article that IHTS has edited in the past? My recent edits on the Evergreen Game article have been substantial and have been based on extensive research from available sources. With some more work, this article could become the authoritative source on this famous chess game. None of the edits I made were done with the intention of needling, annoying, or in any way interacting with IHTS. I don't think IHTS should be overly concerned about minor wording changes to text he wrote 2 or 3 years ago - that just looks petty to me. Nor do I think I should have to search the history of a page just in case I might be overwriting text he wrote 2 or 3 years ago. Can we come to an arrangement whereby I can continue to improve this article without worrying about this BS? Please? BTW if he could cite his Lasker source regarding 15...d2 I'd appreciate it - I can't find mention of that move in his Manual of Chess or Common Sense in Chess. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

It's weird collaborating w/ you at ANI, when you seek my head on a platter at every conceivable opportunity. But here goes ...

"15... Qf5? (Better 15... d2! 16. Nexd2 0-0 +/− Lasker.)" Harding, Tim; Botterill, G. S. (1977). The Italian Game. B.T. Batsford Ltd. p. 45. ISBN 0-7134-3261-6.

(Where +/− is defined as "Clear advantage for White" at beginning of book. There is bibliography at beginning of book listing nine book and eight journal sources, but Lasker isn't listed as direct author of any of those [so I imagine the Lasker line is secondary source to one of those sources].) Please note it says "Better", not "Best", which mean differently of course. (So, "Best" currently in the article s/b changed to "Better". [My original paraphrased edit was: "Black does better with 15...d2! 16.Nexd2 0-0 according to Lasker, with a clear advantage for White." [210] [211], which was just fine of course.]) IHTS (talk) 01:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

OK I thought you meant you had a Lasker book where he recommends 15...d2. I think Lasker's recommendation was originally published in the London Chess Fortnightly in 1892 or 1893, I don't know which issue. Lipke refers to this in his article. There was a reissue of the London Chess Fortnightly in 2001 but I don't have it. MaxBrowne (talk) 05:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Could be. It's not listed in Harding's bibliography, but what it says there is: "We also looked at numerous journals, of which the following are noteworthy: British Chess Magazine (BCM), Chess, Chess Life and Review, Chess Player 1-9, Fernschach, Informator 1-19, 64, Shakhmatny Bulletin, Shakhmaty v USSR." IHTS (talk) 07:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

How about this, you go ahead and edit as you please on that article. I will not go running to ANI over wording changes etc so long as editsums are civil. Call it an experiment. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Damn, IHTS has gone and got himself blocked on an unrelated matter (unfairly in my opinion) so he can't respond to this yet... but if we can collaborate on this article without yelling at each other too much maybe we can look at getting the interaction ban lifted. I'm game to try it. MaxBrowne (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The block was lifted. But I think your idea is great. Behaviorally, I think we both have good understanding on what the other doesn't like. Let's play fair. The iBAN can always be reinstated (I would assume or guess), without a lot of red tape, at your request. Happy editing. IHTS (talk) 03:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, even though I'm sick of all the bullshit and drama, I am not yet comfortable with asking for the IBAN to be formally lifted. There are still a lot of festering sores. That's why I referred to this as an "experiment", a first step in that direction. You obviously care about the article too, so let's see if we can't collaborate on it. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

You seem to want full iBAN with exception that one article. Or creating whatever other gray area - confusing. You've also proposed lifting iBAN. (Which I agreed.) I don't think iBAN is as malleable as you want it to be. I think either the iBAN is there, or it isn't. I can agree with you to lift, but how can I agree to a modification I'm not authorized to, even if I did understand it? IHTS (talk) 10:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

No change of mind, just a clarification. Call it a suspension if you want. This is already a big shift for me, just a few days ago I was saying no way do I want it lifted. Certainly I'll be quick to ask for reinstatement if things get uncivil. Besides, technical breaches are only disruptive if someone complains, which I've said I won't. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, it seems you want some sort of gray area. (I don't know any WP definition for "suspension" re iBAN. If that involves removing it, then acc. J Carter an AN thread is needed.) IHTS (talk) 17:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

If you'll forgive me for saying it I couldn't give a shit what John Carter has to say about anything - very nasty and aggressive editor, prefer you don't mention that name. We don't have to be slaves to process and precedent. How about we find an uninvolved admin we can both respect to facilitate this? I suggest Callanecc. MaxBrowne (talk) 06:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, I have no idea what "this" means. I think either the iBAN is there, or it isn't. IHTS (talk) 07:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

How much analysis of Anderssen-Dufresne is there in Harding & Botterill? Do they go into 19.Be4, 19...Rg4 etc? Any mention of Lipke, Neishtadt, Zaitsev? Harding is usually very thorough with his research before he puts anything in print. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

No not much, just what's quoted above, plus

"17.Nf6+!? (Simpler is 17.Ng3! Qh6 18.Nf5 +/−.)"

and

"19.Qxf3 (19... Rg4! would still leave the issue in doubt.)"

and

"I. Zaitsev, in 64 No's 5 and 6 1976, is the latest master to analyse this game in depth."

and

"10.Rd1 Nge7 11.Bxd3 Qh5 12.Nbd2 0-0 13.Re1 d5 14.Nf1 Bb6 15.Ng3, with a strong attack for the pawn, Adler–Sonkin, Ukraine 1966."

IHTS (talk) 05:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Also note (instead of 10...Nge7), "10... Bb6 11.Qd1! +/− Anderssen–Dufresne, Berlin 1858" (Unzicker). Matanović 1981 (ECO Vol C), p. 250, n. 44. IHTS (talk) 06:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

This was the history of the article immediately prior to MaxBrowne's (MB) 28 Aug 2015 indirect reverting of IHTS; the history clearly shows only two intervening, non-content changes by involved editors since both MB and IHTS's December 2013 editing. The WP:IBAN was placed at MB's request and its terms are clear. It's his responsibility to follow the terms and perform due diligence prior to editing: the state of Evergreen Game was such that any edits MB or ITHS to the article were likely to change some prior text the other had inserted.

MB says the ITHS concern about IBAN violation "looks petty to me" and then attempts to use alleged content improvement as a basis for ignoring their violation. The very nature of IBAN is pettiness; there are 120,533 active users and the overwhelming majority of them manage to edit without requiring the community to supervise their interaction.

As JzG / Guy states above, we need to either enforce the IBAN or trash it, as it's clearly not achieving the desired goal of ceasing chronic complaints about each others behavior from disrupting the community.

Note: Not that anyone should care, but it took me roughly 60 seconds to find the diffs showing the violation; article history -> diff first MB edit in August, find nature of change, use WP:BLAME tool to find insertion -- actually works reliably, not being hosted on WMFs tool labs -- done. NE Ent 12:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Your involvement is also unhelpful. You tried to prevent the imposition of the IBAN from the beginning, and any time I have complained about a violation you have muddied the waters - I can provide diffs if required. I am trying to come to a resolution here and your involvement is not helping. Please stand back. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

This entire subthread is not only unhelpful, but pointless. If you want to change the nature or terms of the i-ban, you are of course free to do so. That would be reasonable and I believe allowed by policies and guidelines. Simply saying that that the existing i-ban, something that the editor making this complaint requested, seems to me inherently problematic, as no alternative is proposed. It also can not unreasonably be seen as perhaps an attempt to use the i-ban to personal advantage. If you don't want the i-ban in place, please request that. If you want to change the terms of the i-ban, please request that. But, frankly, this subthread comes across as, basically, useless. John Carter (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Prior to this ANI, the editor had undone three of my edits. In all three cases I documented my original text at article Talk, to facilitate the editor to restore them, but this was ignored. So I restored my contents, with editsum indicating why re iBAN. In the first instance there was no conflict, in the second instance the editor opened an ANI on the basis of iBAN violation, admin JzG closed it as "no violation". In the third instance the editor reverted my restore, telling me to "go to ANI or get lost". I went to the closing admin JzG instead, who opened this ANI. (The content of the third edit has not been re-restored yet, even though I've explained twice in this ANI why the undo by the editor was a disimprovement.) Today, a fourth of my edits has been undone by the editor, at a different article. Again, I'm sure the undo wasn't intentional. (The editor has refused to ever check edit histories claiming it is too burdonsome to do so. I can understand that. That is why I have in each case updated article Talk as mentioned.) So I've updated article Talk again [212], expecting the editor to notice and restore my content. So far he has never done so in any of the four undos. What I want (to minimize people-involvement such as asking an admin to restore the edits each time this happens, or opening an ANI on these inadvertent undos), is the freedom to do as I've done in the first three undos - which is to restore the contents myself, with appropriate editsum indicating the iBAN. (So far I have not been able to do that - once it resulted in the editor opening the previous ANI, once it resulted in his revert & the nasty editsum.) OK, so what does consensus want to do as way forward? The third and fourth undos are so far unrestored, and a method for future is also unaddressed. I've no desire to be held accountable for iBAN violations, so can there be some direction given or approved? Thx for consideration. IHTS (talk) 06:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Re today's new undo, the editor has updated Talk, clearly justifying his undo on the basis that my add was unsourced. (First, iBAN does not say "Editors may not undo one another's edits, unless they are unsourced." Second, sourcing isn't generally required unless the content is challenged or likely to be challenged. [At the time I made the add, neither was the case.] Third, there is a source. [I could add it, and add the content back, but, the content s/ have never been removed per iBAN, a request for source could have been made to Talk instead.]) The editor seems emboldened to ignore iBAN at every step, even when acquainted with the facts of violating iBAN. Four times now. IHTS (talk) 08:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Complaint concerning the conduct of admin Guy/Jzg

Not sure if this is the best place to do it, but Arbcom is probably a bit extreme. I believe that admin Guy has handled an ANI dispute very badly. It is inappropriate for any admin to take a "schoolmaster", "you're behaving like kids" approach towards a dispute. This is not helpful to anyone, does nothing to resolve the dispute and is insulting to both parties. No admin should behave like this, however trivial the dispute may appear to him or her.

Please consider this thread. I complained about a very clear interaction ban violation by another editor, who reverted my edit and addressed me in his edit summary. He responded by accusing me of same, in that I inadvertently overwrote text which he had written some time earlier (although as even he acknowledges I was acting in good faith and not intentionally edit warring). Rather than addressing the issue of whether my edits to the article in question were in fact IBAN violations, JzG initially proposed that both parties be banned from editing the article, then just closed the thread and told us to "stop bickering", leaving the central issue unresolved. I was hardly "bickering" since my only post in that thread was to raise it in the first place. I wanted to nip the issue in the bud, not have it keep coming back. I raised my concerns with Guy on his talk page and was told "a plague on both your houses." I don't believe I did anything to deserve a "plague on my house".

When the editor continued on this train, I did something I shouldn't have done and have apologised for - I reverted his edit and told him to take it to ANI or get lost. I should have opened another ANI myself, but after my previous experience I didn't have much confidence in the process. After a bit of admin shopping by the other party, JzG opened another ANI, and opened it with an uncivil personal attack. He has continued in this vain.

I seriously question this admin's competence, and ask other admins to please review this situation. Thank you. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

So now you are doubling down? And that's supposed to demonstrate that IHTS is the sole source of the problem? Let me know how that works out for you, I'm on a plane for the next ten hours or so. Guy (Help!) 09:53, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm complaining about your handling of the dispute which was highly combative and insulting from the beginning. This is not how admins are supposed to deal with things. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I was not involved in the original discussions; my advice would be for everyone to just drop it and move on. Nobody has covered themselves in glory there, and if this keeps getting dug up, sooner or later someone is going to get hit with a boomerang. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC).

Lanikiveil, I appreciate that you want to calm things down but I have raised a concern and I want it to be addressed before I "move on". There are right ways and wrong ways for an admin to approach an ANI dispute, and I don't think the schoolmaster "stop acting like kids" approach is the right way. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Allow me to say that I am becoming increasingly concerned regarding the extremely tendentious nature of MaxBrowne's conduct, and am coming to the conclusion that a much longer block for his violation of the terms of an i-ban is not apparently the only problem. Max has started a subsection above, indicating that he thinks the "way forward" is to apparently do something other than adhere to the i-ban he has been placed under, and now he is seeking to blame others for having the guts to call him out for his own extremely combative behavior. At this point, I'm thinking a one-week block of MaxBrowne for both the i-ban and his tendentious efforts to try to do everything but address the nature of the misconduct which started the discussion regarding him here might be the minimum called for under the circumstances. John Carter (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I saw some positives in IHTS's post and was hoping we could come to some arrangement. This prompted my "way forward" section. please AGF. MaxBrowne (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The arrangement is for you to cease wikilawyering and actually abide by the existing sanctions. You, however, seem to be perhaps incapable of understanding that, and, honestly, I have a great deal of trouble in seeing how that would do anything but perhaps strengthen existing concerns regarding your conduct, and, potentially, the length of sanctions to be imposed, considering you seem to not adequately understand the main concern here, which is a rather obvious violation of an i-ban. John Carter (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I am glad you are not an admin anymore. From WP:PUNISH: "Some editors, even some administrators on Wikipedia forget why we are here and begin to adopt a punitive model for Wikipedia politics. They support blocks, bans, and enforcement of Arbitration Committee sanctions in order to exact retribution on "bad users" rather than helping to create and improve encyclopedic content. This is regrettable and problematic, not to mention contrary to the reason for blocks, bans, and enforcements as stated in the Wikipedia guidelines and policies linked in the previous sentence. When proposing or supporting an action that could easily be interpreted to be punishment, ask yourself, "Will this action help make the content on Wikipedia better?" If the answer is not an unequivocal "yes" and you still end up supporting the action, you may be an adherent to the punitive model of Wikipedia. This may also mean you enjoy the perceived "power" that you get from enforcing your will through the various features (or bugs) of the Wikipedia community." MaxBrowne (talk) 07:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I think all of this is a clear case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on your part. You should be thanking JzG for being so lenient, because he would have been justified in blocking you for violating the IBAN, instead he's let you off with a stern warning not to do it again. I urge you to consider that you're digging yourself deeper into a hole before you continue your campaign, as every post you make is making it less likely you'll get what you want. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC).

Agreed. You have repeatedly done everything in your power to, basically, all but say you have done nothing wrong, and on that basis alone there is every reason to believe that you will have no reservations about doing the same thing again. That being the case, under the circumstances, a block is entirely reasonable, because there is every evidence from your own comments that you see nothing wrong with how you violated the i-ban and seemingly have no reservations about doing the same thing again. Under the circumstances, honestly, the only conclusion I can draw from your ongoing posts is that the block lengths that had been previously considered might not, given the nature of your subsequent posts, be long enough for the kind of WP:IDHT behavior you have displayed. John Carter (talk) 18:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

MaxBrowne, you must disengage here if you want to avoid getting blocked. IBANs are usually interpreted in a very strict manner and they are typically broadly construed. Getting into a ping-pong revert match at Evergreen game over a very minor matter is an example of what the IBAN is designed to avoid. Making a comment regarding IHTS on an unrelated matter here, even if your comment is in IHTS's favor, is also a violation of the IBAN. You should not have gotten involved with an AN/EW thread regarding IHTS and that has nothing to do with you. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sjakkalle good to see you here. I guess my post there is a kind of signal that I'm willing to consider lifting the IBAN if we can avoid the kind of nastiness that led to it in the first place. I indicated the same in the "way forward" subthread. A positive move for the encyclopedia if it can happen, yes? MaxBrowne (talk) 18:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Where on earth did you get the idea that the i-ban exists only on the basis of your own support of it? An i-ban is two-way, and, despite your repeated comments here, I get a very strong impression the person who has ignored it most is you. Of course you support removing any sanctions that could get you blocked, any idiot would. But the sanctions were placed by an administrator, not by you, and it truly amazes me that you are still incapable of seeing that, and that repeated failure to do so raises reasonable WP:CIR concerns. John Carter (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

John C, I appreciate your clear eye on things, but my impression of the iBAN discussion is that is was mostly to accord Max what he wanted very much. (I didn't agree with that process, but that is water over the dam.) The fact is I'm happy Max sees now how the iBAN is problematical to both of our editing work, and, in fact iBAN is itself full of a lot of holes [shabbily defined, not a lot of history with enforcement issues], and who wants to spend time "creating new legislation" when a more desirable result is to put it in a drawer, if possible, and that seems to be possible for the first time, so I'm happy 'bout that.) Thx for your attention & consideration. IHTS (talk) 03:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

If there is a reason to believe the i-ban should be lifted, it would, of course, be reasonable to discuss that, probably in a separate section. However, I as an individual can say that the conduct of the other party involved here in no way inspires me with any confidence regarding his own ability to edit collaboratively with others. Also, it would be very useful if the two of you indicated that there would be some other means the two of you would take, other than the behavior which evidently led to the existing i-ban, which would help resolve the issues that led to the discussion here. However, to be blunt, I believe the behavior of at least one editor here might be such that others might still question whether it would be in the project's best interests to withdraw sanctions. Also, personally, I think it might be best to start that discussion at WP:AN, where the existing i-ban was imposed. John Carter (talk) 19:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the reason is, that both editors would like it lifted. To edit freely. As mentioned to Max, I think we each know by now, without getting explicit, what the other doesn't tolerate. (For me, am willing to discuss more explicitly if necessary, and I assume he is too, but is it?) If protocol is to start AN thread requesting lift, perhaps most convincing is if he initiated it, for obvious reason. (I of course would immediately become joint to that request.) IHTS (talk) 22:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC) The other editor has apparently changed their mind. IHTS (talk) 10:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to come late to the party. Guy's behaviour is indefensible. See the complaints at [213]. Guy protected the page so Jimbo couldn't rule on the complaint against him. Ihardlythinkso, if you study the diff you will see that Guy works in collaboration with Future Perfect at Sunset. Why not add him to the complaint and kill two birds with one stone? 78.149.127.86 (talk) 12:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The complainant (thread OP) is another user, not me. IHTS (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

That's pretty funny. You quoted a series of comments by CyclePat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who subsequently struck them and changed form oppose to support on my RFA, which was nearly ten years ago! Guy (Help!) 21:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I obviously myself see sufficient basis for some sort of administrative involvement, but I ain't an admin and so can't do anything in that regard myself. Yep, I talk a good fight but thankfully I don't have to actually make any of these calls myself. ;) I don't have the guts, basically. Anyone want to do something here, or should we start yet another separate subsection or more to discuss the various sanction options? John Carter (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• The material cited by User:78.149.127.86 above was removed as being from an IP sockpuppet of banned User:Vote (X) for Change when User:2.96.189.207 posted it.[214] Both IPs geolocate to London, UK, using the same ISP. For some reason I am suddenly in the mood for some roast duck with a nice CheckUser sauce to smoke out any stealth accounts. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
• John Carter asked me to weigh in. There's been some discussion on my talk page and I had good hope that we could get rid of the iBan. I don't know what to do here. As far as I'm concerned, we lift the iBan completely, and then no one will have to worry about whether this or that edit or revert (they're making those anyway) is a violation of the ban or not. Just get rid of the ban and take it from there, dealing with possible disruption in the usual way. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
• BTW, I have a long history of disagreeing with IHTS, but I gotta say, he's on his best behavior here. His opponent, not so much--those who called for a block (I think I've seen two or three calls from different people for a block) may have had a point. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

You do understand why I'm concerned about lifting the IBAN, right? Have only to examine the original AN thread to understand this, I was genuinely distressed and more than a little creeped out. I guess someone could propose it at a new AN thread but I wouldn't be happy about it. To clarify, are you in favour of a punitive block now, after a week? MaxBrowne (talk) 04:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, no, I don't really understand. And to clarify, I said, I believe, "may have had". I don't know about this "week": I think there was some displeasure with your comments in this very thread. Drmies (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Please review the original thread. Note that serious consideration was given to making the IBAN one way. The whole thing was very upsetting and is still quite raw for me. It should be patently obvious why I don't want the IBAN lifted. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

There very definitely has been some displeasure with MaxBrowne's conduct in this very thread. John Carter (talk) 23:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

And with yours. You have been uncivil throughout. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Max, I am amazed at your inability to grasp the fairly obvious fact that it is in fact your incivility which precipitated this conversation, your incivility during the conversation which has caused others to question your self-awareness, your incivility in arbitrarily and unilaterally attempting to close a proposed option below, your dubious grasp of procedures and civility in starting this subthread, your rather obvious arrogance in attempting to apparently unilaterally dictate the outcome of this discussion in the subthread immediately above this one, and, in short, your dubious conduct and dubious civility throughout which is the primary matter of concern here. I will acknowledge that it is hard to effectively describe your conduct without using terms which are perhaps less than optimal, but if you want to blame anyone for the criticism you have received here, it is most reasonable to blame yourself, for being the proximate cause of that criticism having to be made John Carter (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of arrogance, please stop attempting to speak for the entire internet. You have been by far the most strident and aggressive person in this ANI, replying to almost every conversation with yet another personal attack and derailing any attempts I have made to dialogue with other editors. There was no need whatsoever for you to chime in here for example; Drmies was talking to me, not to you. Likewise there was no need for this particularly nasty personal attack while I was attempting to talk to Sjakkalle. Please go bark at someone else. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

You are the best person to speak about arrogance here, of course, considering you have displayed the pretty much unheard-of arrogance to temporarily collapse one of NE Ent's proposals below as being other than a serious proposal. You still do not seem to understand that it is your behavior at issue here, and, in fact, by the above post, pretty much continue to display the same issues that have been remarked upon repeatedly by multiple others. John Carter (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

"....have been remarked upon repeatedly by multiple others John Carter." There, fixed it for you. The difference is that the "multiple others" you refer to have spoken in a reasonable manner instead of injecting themselves into every conversation and attacking me every step of the way. You know, as in WP:AGF, WP:CIV, WP:NPA. Remember those? And I don't see any "except at ANI" clause in any of these policies. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

And those multiple others who have spoken civilly clearly excludes yourself, whose own conduct has been as I say below in the newly added proposal both inexcusable and, to the best of my knowledge, maybe in some ways, so far as I can remember, the worst I have ever seen at an AN thread. John Carter (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's review some comments from this thread (please see above)

• "I think all of this is a clear case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on your part." Lankiveil
• "MaxBrowne, you must disengage here if you want to avoid getting blocked." Sjakkalle
• "So now you are doubling down? And that's supposed to demonstrate that IHTS is the sole source of the problem? Let me know how that works out for you" Guy/JzG
• "The WP:IBAN was placed at MB's request and its terms are clear. It's his responsibility to follow the terms" Me. NE Ent 02:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

You can see that this is a problem though? One particularly aggressive editor has repeatedly interjected with his personal attacks over the more moderate language of other editors, basically sabotaging any efforts towards an amicable resolution. MaxBrowne (talk) 04:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The difficulty seems to lie in your own refusal to acknowledge that your own conduct, including both that which prompted this thread and in this thread itself, is worse. The most significant problem, so far as I can see, is what seems to be your inability ro recognize that your opinions are not, and should not be, absolute laws. And once again you overlook not only your own refusal to speak in a reasonable manner, but your, to my eyes, unprecedented arrogance in preemptively hatting one of NE Ent's proposals before. Once again, the problem seems to be regarding your conduct, and your apparent inability or refusal to recognize that it might be problematic. Concerns regarding that have been expressed repeatedly. John Carter (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposal (lift iBan)

iban between Ihardlythinkso and MaxBrowne is removed.

• Support as proposer. NE Ent 23:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

* Absolutely not. Anyone who reviews the original thread will understand why I requested the IBAN and why I don't want it lifted. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support. The editor has repeatedly contradicted themself both re the edit undo proviso of iBAN, and the other aspect including making personal derogatory comments re the other editor (i.e., me). (If I need to go into detail with diffs to prove said points, I'm able to do that. [I've done much of it already here and at admins' user Talks.]) The iBAN s/b enforced, or lifted. (My preference is that it be lifted, so both editors can edit freely. I believe I have more basis for concern than the other editor of being on receiving end of uncivil comments in the absence of iBAN, since that has been what has been happening; however, editing in freedom is more important, and, the uncivil comments at Talks and in ANI threads have never been enforced by admins, the iBAN has been ignored on that level as well, so what good does it represent me?) IHTS (talk) 08:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC) And ditto Drmies below, thanks to NE Ent, for this proposal. IHTS (talk) 10:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Actually, I just recently looked and it seems that all sanctions of this sort can be taken to WP:AE, even those which are community imposed rather than ArbCom imposed. In general, people get better or at least quicker responses there. John Carter (talk) 20:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• I'd prefer an alternative, such as making certain articles (and associated talk pages) exception, if possible. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

  What articles are you referring, and why? (The only issues at Evergreen Game and Wayward Queen Attack are edit undos while under iBAN, and aren't based on any content dispute [at least none I'm aware of]. Are you suggesting to retain iBAN on articles where it hasn't worked or been enforced, for which this ANI was presumably opened?!) IHTS (talk) 05:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• More like, for the Chess example above, the IBAN does not help (as you said not all of the edits there would be considered dis-improvement). So not exactly what you suggested, but I hope my point is made. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 08:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• I'm still not understanding. (Of four undos, two were disimprovements, the other two were equal-quality copyedits [neither improvements nor disimprovements], but still forbade by iBAN.) IHTS (talk) 09:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support. If MaxBrowne is unwilling to adhere to the letter and spirit of an iBAN that only he wants, then let's get rid of it. Keeping it in place is only causing more drama. Other ways to minimize drama between these two editors (e.g. subjecting both to a one-revert rule with respect to each other's edits) should be considered. Cobblet (talk) 21:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

  There has never been any edit-war episode between Max and me (if memory serves) at any article. The only reverts have been over inadvertently undone edits in relation to iBAN, which forbids undoing one another's edits. Although two of the undos were content disimprovements, none of the the reverts were related in any fashion to any sort of content dispute(s) (at least none I'm aware of). (My impression is that Max was simply upset about being reverted on basis of iBAN - that he felt reversion on that basis was unacceptable interference to his article improvement efforts.) IHTS (talk) 23:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Noted; this thread's title does say "lame edit war", but you didn't write that. Cobblet (talk) 03:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. IHTS (talk) 11:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• Let's look at this. IHTS claims (naturally I disagree) that he has more reason than I do to worry about the consequences of removing the IBAN in terms of incivility from the other etc. Well in that case, let him put his money where his mouth is; he should have no problem with the following suggestion. Naturally any conditions would be worded so as to apply equally to both parties:

• strict interpretation of WP:CIV and WP:NPA, with a minimum two week block and possible re-imposition of IBAN for any breeches, including but not limited to:

• personal attacks
• snide or aggressive comments (e.g. in edit summaries)
• any kind of harassment or bullying
• repeated references to past grievances (i.e. failure to drop the WP:STICK)

• recommendation that the two editors avoid unnecessarily mentioning each other, refrain from personal remarks of any nature and avoid each other in general

• strong warning against any form of wikilawyering or gaming the system MaxBrowne (talk) 00:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, I can't agree with this. It'll be up to admins to impose the penalty for violation of such sanctions, if they are agreed upon, and I don't want that kind of precision because it will lead to...well, look up at where this thread started. Both of you need to adhere to the normal guidelines, the ones I and everyone else have to live by. It is entirely possible that admins will look upon this or that snarky remark with less leniency because it's you (whichever one I'm talking to right now), but drawing up a list of qualifications is not the way to go. Also, someone making a personal attack would lead to a reinstatement of the iBan? Isn't that asymmetrical warfare? Sorry MaxBrowne, but no. Drmies (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• What assurance do I have, then, that this ([215][216][217][218][219][220][221][222][223] ) won't resume if the IBAN is lifted? (i.e. repeated unnecessary attacks and derogatory references in discussions that have nothing to do with me). How do I know the "classic narcissist" comment won't continue to be dragged out again and again and again and again and again and again and again? I believe my concerns are legitimate. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• Assurances? Two things. a. admins will enforce "civility" or whatever passes for it. b. What assurance do we have that you (singular and plural) won't continue this eteeeeernal wikilawyering if the iBan stays in place? Clearly IHTS was some kind of butt-hurt during those two weeks a year and a half ago and yeah, sure, he shouldn't have been talking about you so much (if I didn't know any better I'd call it cute in a high-school sort of way), but by the same token, isn't all of it on his talk page? What do you care what he does on his talk page? And that you keep an archive of bad diffs, isn't that telling as well? How long do you want to nurse this? At least on the part of IHTS I see something that suggests he's working to get past this. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The "archive" was copied from the original AN thread and has not been saved by me. Suggest striking that. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC) Appreciate the trivialization and insults to both parties too, btw. MaxBrowne (talk) 18:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• Max, you s/ distinguish between my objections re admins (specifically The Bushranger, DangerousPanda, and [indirectly] Ched) picking up/keying off your "classic narcissist" epithet against me, versus your use against me, since therein I make a huge distinction. (I.e. admins are expected to demo conduct of a higher standard, re WP:ADMINACCT.) IHTS (talk) 06:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

IHTS has greatly reduced his editing of chess articles – that is assurance enough. It's time to move on. I think both IHTS and you are tired of this charade, although it is entirely understandable that neither of you feel like you can afford to admit that to the other. Cobblet (talk) 03:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Not aware of anything I resist "admitting to", can you clarify what charade, thx. (If you mean the iBAN, I never thought it was a good idea, but had no control over it being imposed.) IHTS (talk) 06:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

And once again, an ANI is being used by the other editor under iBAN, as coatrack for throwing mud (e.g. laundry list of diffs to "evidence" bad or uncivil behavior against them). (Do I get equal time? I didn't ask to go there, nor did/do I have desire to. But the hypocrisy is deafening. Am I being baited to prove why, so this ANI can be reduced to a cat-fight, with fingers pointed at the baited cat, to say "I told you so!"?! And this scenario hasn't been played out over-and-over?! And I'm accused of not dropping sticks?!) There is no WP venue anymore for ongoing WP:ETIQUETTE issue. But I'm not averse to opening a post-WP:ETIQUETTE thread with supervision by a third party, until Max is satisfied (though I presume, that would be never, based on the circularity). It seems to me the other editor is taking or getting in all the swipes they can on my character, at very public ANI. (Again. Same thing in previous ANIs.) Am I supposed to like or enjoy that? IHTS (talk) 09:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

No, not doing that at all.... I'm talking more about me than about you. About my misgivings re lifting the IBAN. And you're in the best position to answer them. How do I know all this crap won't happen again? MaxBrowne (talk) 10:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, the "crap" flowed way more from you to me. Please stop the baiting. IHTS (talk) 05:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

In the weeks leading up to the IBAN you were attacking me on a daily basis in threads that I wasn't even involved in, as evidenced by the diffs I gave; this is a matter of record. I need to know that this is not going to resume if the IBAN is lifted. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

More circular baiting. More hypocritical standard. I asked if you would please stop it. ¶ In the days leading up to the IBAN you levied the following unwarranted personal attacks; this is a matter of record: "This is classic narcissist / Diva behaviour. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)" ""Classic narcissist behaviour" was my interpretation of your actions, based on a number of factors, including but not limited to (1) your hypersensitivity to criticism (2) your extreme hostility and argumentativeness over the most petty disputes (3) your flattery towards those who affirm or defend you (4) your absolute inability to see yourself as others see you. I've come across this sort of behaviour frequently on the net and I can recognise it when I see it. MaxBrowne (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)" "Here's the thing. If someone were to accuse me of having sex with sheep, that wouldn't bother me in the slightest, since I know I have no zoophilic tendencies whatsoever. It's so far from the truth that it's laughable. This is the effect that the majority of your insults have on me. On the other hand, if someone were to call me a loser who spends way too much time on the computer, that would carry a lot more sting, because it's much closer to the truth. If "narcissist" and "diva" carry a sting for you, that suggests to me that they're somewhere in the vicinity of the truth. If I'm totally wrong about this, maybe you could do something to correct that mis-impression? Believe me, I would love to be proved wrong. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)" ¶ You were not blocked for this (*I* was, for making a baited response!) or even warned. So what kind of assurance do I have this behavior is not going to resume? The answer is none. No editor s/ have to face that kind of personal abuse--your link to Narcissism describes as a diagnosable personality disorder--especially from three admins who decided to pick up your epithet and throw again. But that is clearly the indisputable nature of the current lawless and stoneage WP all editor volunteers are subject to. IHTS (talk) 10:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The right way to do this is to link to the original thread, not to cut and paste one person in pretty green colours. It's kind of understandable that you don't want your own behaviour in that thread to come under too much scrutiny, though. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Both assertion and assumption are wrong. But anything to smuggle more insult, right? IHTS (talk) 02:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• I support Ent's proposal and thank him for it. Drmies (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting the IBAN. I realize that consensus is against me on this and it's probably going to happen, but I see no sign that IHTS is willing to modify his approach, and I'm a little fearful of what will happen once he's off the leash. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

  "leash: A restraining chain, rope, or strap attached to the collar or harness of an animal." (The American Heritage Dictionary, 5th ed., 2012). Go soak your head?! IHTS (talk) 09:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposal (Nash Equilibrium iBan)

The existing iBan is replaced with a Nash Equilibrium ban such that:

• If either editor complains about the other anywhere on Wikipedia, both will be blocked for a day, with each subsequent violation to follow a Fibonacci sequence. (The sequence has the nice property that the first values are low, but it grows rapidly in case the pair doesn't get the hint.) As this is a "no fault" ban, it should no require long ANI threads / discussions to enforce. NE Ent 23:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I honestly cannot imagine any situation in which we have said that someone is blocked because of the actions of someone with whom they are or have been in conflict. John Carter (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually I'm quite serious (reviewers please see [224] and [225]). NE Ent 01:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• Rather obvious oppose. The proposal violates two basic, if not codified principles that are essential to make the blocking policy come off as fair. First, legitimate complaints should not result in sanctions being imposed on the complainant as we want users to report actual cases of misconduct. Second, blocks should only be done for actions that the blockee had some control over; being blocked bacause of an edit someone else did is a capricious way of enforcing things. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't every iBan prevent editors from reporting some instances of misconduct? If you think about it, this just an iBan with easy to enforce consequences, as opposed to the current sort of, mayb, iBan currently in place. NE Ent 21:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: topic ban one, DS/final warning on the other

I propose:

• 1) The existing i-ban remains in place;
• 2) User:MaxBrowne is topic banned from all content related to chess, broadly construed, for three months
• 3) User:Ihardlythinkso is subject to discretionary sanctions for a concurrent period in roughly the same area

• Note: Both of the above are of course subject to it being the case that the problematic interactions of these two is limited to the broad subject area of chess, which seems to be the case from what I have seen before, but for all the words spoken by MaxBrowne in particular there hasn't been much to directly indicate that

• 4) Any concerns regarding the conduct of either editor under the provisions above to be taken to WP:AE.

• So far as I can tell, the statements at the AE page permit concerns about sanctions imposed by both ArbCom and by the community to be discussed there, and may be seen as indicating such is how such matters should be done, and it generally gets quicker results anyway.

• Support as proposer. John Carter (talk) 14:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• This seems to me a more acceptable option than the one NE Ent proposed above, as it doesn't necessarily sanction both individuals for the misconduct of only one of them. Max is being proposed to be subject to the stronger sanctions on the basis that it was MaxBrowne's unacceptable behavior that prompted this thread, the grossly combative and dare I say self-righteous nature of many of his comments and actions, including in particular his action here in basically unilaterally hatting the proposal immediately above. To the best of my knowledge, I have never seen such a transparent display of blind arrogance at one of the noticeboards.
• The arrogance Max has displayed, regularly, is to my eyes completely inexcusable and unsupportable. It is to be hoped that if this proposal is approved, Max will make some effort to become more familiar with procedures and conduct guidelines here. However, it is also possible that, based on what has been said, the other individual may take advantage of Max's topic ban if countermeasures are not in place. On that basis, the discretionary sanctions are proposed. I am going to assume, possibly incorrectly, that the first misstep by Ihardlythinkso may well be placing him under a topic ban for at least as long as Max's own. John Carter (talk) 14:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
• Excuse please, but what are you suggesting qualifies as "may take advantage of Max's topic ban"? (Restoring two of the four edit content undos that were contrary to iBAN?) I don't know what bad thing you are supposing that I might do, can you be specific so I can know? IHTS (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• I am not really myself presuming anything, other than the rather obvious distrust that Max has of you. I suppose it might be possible, however, for someone to go on a rampage of reversion, which I do not honestly think you would do, and, honestly, I don't expect any particular misconduct from you. It is pretty much just a generalized preventative measure, much like the i-ban itself. John Carter (talk) 23:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• OK, but I think you're misreading Max's "distrust". (It isn't re reversions, rather re incivility. [Which goes both ways of course.]) IHTS (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Thoughts

I think we can conclude from the entirety of this ANI thread, and from the initially cited edit summary ("Go to ANI or get lost") and NE Ent's summation of this ANI thread, that while IHTS is not blameless, Max Browne is by far the aggressor here and that something has to be done to stop the aggression and endless disruption. I'm not sure than any of the multiple proposals currently listed above are going to resolve the issue. I'm posting this as an outside observer who has seen this drag on endlessly for over three weeks. I'd really like to see it resolved. Although people did not bold their !votes, there was definite consensus above to remove the IBan. That may the simplest way forward, with the exhortation to the two parties to remain civil and neutral and to avoid charged words and insults (and to discuss civilly on article-talk when a disagreement arises rather than arguing or reverting). Maybe we could try that, and then if it doesn't work, come back here with the view to a more stringent solution(s). Softlavender (talk) 06:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree on all points. (Except that, again, Max & I have never revert-warred re content, only re edits overlaid contrary to iBAN.) IHTS (talk) 10:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

If the IBan is lifted, I propose the two parties drop the past completely and start afresh, never referring to anything that occurred before this date. I think this is really the only way we can create a clean slate of civility and respect. The other editor's past behavior no longer exists and can no longer be referred to. All opinions going forward will solely be about content, and if the content in question already exists, do not refer to how it got there. Discuss content and policy, not other editors or their behavior. Softlavender (talk) 11:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Codename Lisa on article Computer Program

User:Codename Lisa did the following:

• edited Computer Program's definition claiming an App is a sequence of computer instructions.
• cited six questionable sources.
• reacted to my objection by writing, "And yet so far, you have done nothing but poisoning the atmosphere with your negativity, ignorance, frivolous demands and in this case, a blatant lie."
• reacted to my objection by writing, "The problem is your own brain..."
• showed contempt for one of Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Five pillars by writing, "Enough being nice with this person."
• showed contempt for Wikipedia's reliable sources policy by writing, "I also don't care if 'computer program' and 'app' are 100% synonyms."
• admitted to doing original research by writing, "Even if they overlap 50% in meaning, they deserve inclusion in the article."

Here is the diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Computer_program&diff=684145424&oldid=684137222 Timhowardriley (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Timhowardriley: What administrator action are you requesting? This looks like an active content dispute. Parties should be mindful to keep arguments based on the content and not the editor, but there doesn't look to be anything actionable here that I can see. This looks like something that would be more appropriate for an WP:RFC or dispute resolution. If you want help with that, feel free to leave a message on my talk page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, jeez, I dunno. Where I work, "you have done nothing but poisoning the atmosphere with your negativity, ignorance, frivolous demands and in this case, a blatant lie" isn't how colleagues work out differences of opinion re the best course of action to take. Seems to me that either the statement is mostly true, in which case Timhowardriley probably needs some administrator attention -- suggestions, warnings, a swift boot, or whatever; or the statement is mostly false, in which case Codename Lisa probably needs some administrator attention -- suggestions, warnings, a swift boot, or whatever; or there's something more complicated going on here, and maybe they both need some administrator attention. But at any rate Rhododendrites I wouldn't just shrug it off, no. Herostratus (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I do think that Timhowardriley is more or less in the right here, but the way he opened the discussion with a couple reverts and accusations of advertising likely got things off on the wrong foot. That doesn't excuse personal attacks, of course. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I did overreact to my first impression of the changes. I then softened my tone and apologized for it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Codename_Lisa&diff=prev&oldid=684105546 . Timhowardriley (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

As User:Rhodendrites has said, this is primarily a content dispute, although it is being compounded by violations of civility and personal attacks. Resolving a content dispute peacefully often helps resolve any conduct issues. The advice to read the dispute resolution policy is on the mark. WP:ANI should be a late stage in dealing with a conduct issue, and should not be used if content discussion is still feasible. In particular, I would suggest either moderated discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard, where the moderator will keep the participants discussing content rather than conduct or contributors, or a neutrally worded Request for Comments on any questioned edits. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• Warn User:Timhowardriley, follow with a block if ineffective. I feel Timhowardriley is not here to build an encyclopedia. First: His user page shows he has a long history of vilifying his fellow editors, including but not limited to Codename Lisa.

Second: This person has started with a WP:POINTy blanket revert ([226]) that destroys edits of more than one editor's contribution, and has a pointy edit summary. Codename Lisa's initial response ([227]) has been civil ... and rather interesting. Codename Lisa's edit have been supported by six citations; later 25 more sources were added to the talk page. However, assessing the very long discussion spanning 36 edits that has occurred ([228]), I cannot find a shred of evidence that Timhowardriley ever tried to treat the dispute fairly. I agree with the first of Herostratus assessments, "the statement is mostly true, in which case Timhowardriley probably needs some administrator attention -- suggestions, warnings, a swift boot, or whatever".

Fleet Command (talk)

* Regarding "His user page shows he has a long history of vilifying his fellow editors...": This essay is a long history of others vilifying me, not me vilifying others.

* Regarding "This person has started with a WP:POINTy blanket revert ([229]) that destroys edits of more than one editor's contribution, and has a pointy edit summary.": I'm sorry. I shouldn't have done that.

* Regarding "Codename Lisa's edit have been supported by six citations;": One reliable citation is necessary. Six unreliable citations are meaningless.

* Regarding the long discussion: Yes, I'm trying to extract the justification of why App is now synonymous with Computer Program. And if it isn't then it should be removed from the definition. I'm trying to keep the conversation technical; however, personal comments keep appearing from those who don't want the removal. Timhowardriley (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

"I'm trying to extract the justification of why App is now synonymous with Computer Program". Well, stop that. "App" can be in the article even if it is related enough. (You've been told already.) And it is related. Both Ruud and Rhodendrites, who are totally alien have performed marvelously better than you so far. Fleet Command (talk) 20:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

"This essay is a long history of others vilifying me, not me vilifying others." It is personal attack anyway. And when you have so much problem with so many different editors, it is high time you realized you are the problem, not others. Fleet Command (talk) 20:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

(Comment by block-evading sockpuppet removed per WP:DENY. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Janagewen.)

---

This diff [230] shows a recent pattern of abusive behavior by Codename Lisa that is worthy of a civility warning from an administrator. Any future offense should result in a short block. 73.152.188.151 (talk) 00:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

(Comment by block-evading sockpuppet removed per WP:DENY. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Janagewen.)

Eek. "I hate you, I hate you, I hate you" is not actually an insult (it's just an expression of emotion) and so I guess it's not necessarily exactly uncivil, and it is honest, but still... May I suggest a chill pill, @Codename Lisa:? You don't talk that way at work, I hope? Well this is our mutual workplace. Take a step back and remember 1) this is just a website, and 2) this is supposed to be a fun hobby, and 3) in 100 years none of this will matter. Please relax, will you? I suggest you'll be happier in the long run.Herostratus (talk) 05:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Herostratus: Thanks for the suggestion. But it appears you did not verify whether what I said is a joke and whether the person to whom I aimed it has been offended. Indeed, the person who raised the objection is (signing "Aaron J.") is the blocked vandal and sock-puppeteer User:Janagewen. (I will file a request to block his IP.) As for taking a chill pill, everyone here knows that I am the coolest person in Wikipedia. So, while I had fun reading your comment, a mass-produced prescription no less, I am afraid it is impossible to die from chill pill overdose.

And you know, I am not very comfortable with you coming here and becoming judge on people's behavior without getting your facts right. Wikipedians are human. For example: When a vandal insults a good Wikipedian 35 times, the good Wikipedian may eventually snap and retort back. But I am concerned that you may just add insult the good Wikipedian's injury by taking the vandal's side without knowing what you are doing.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Well but here's the thing. This is a very large website, fast-moving with a lot of edits coming in thru the pneumatic tubes every minute. Right now there're 23 threads on this board alone. It's not always possible to take the time to do proper due diligence, in addition to one's regular editing stuff (it's different it reaches the level of formal proceedings, of course). It's too bad but it's really just a subset of "people are busy and the world's unfair"... we want be as fair as reasonably possible. If I misread you, sorry, but jokes are hard to pull off here (I should know, heh), and anyway its not like I was calling for any sanctions or anything on you -- just a general admonition... I dunno who's right or who's wrong here, and not being an admin it's not really my remit to dig deeper, but if people are being mean to you and it's not your fault and you aren't able to convince them to stop, it seems a couple of solutions would be to double down and get your diffs in order and get those people on the track for being corrected or (if not amenable to correction) kicked out (which would be a service to the Wikipedia generally), or else go edit somewhere where those people aren't, for a while... Herostratus (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Macrophilia article

I would take this to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard or to the Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard, but there is a backlog at the former and this matter has already been taken to the latter in the past. Furthermore, the problem repeatedly going on at the Macrophilia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article is that editors, WP:Newbies and other inexperienced editors, keep changing the content away from what is supported by the sources even after being told of the WP:Verifiability policy and WP:Reliable sources guideline. The article has also been plagued by WP:Socking. All of this is why the article has been WP:Semi-protected in the past. The article is bad enough as it is, without having to worry about WP:Synthesis being added to it. The issue is that macrophilia is predominantly documented in men, but some male editors keep trying to give "equal weight" to women being macrophiles; or, in the latest case, even to genderqueer people. For that latest development, see this, this and this edit made to the article, and this, this and this edit made to the talk page. ‎Jitenshasw (talk · contribs) has stated, "This is NOT opinion. Half of this article doesn't apply to women like me or male gay macrophiles. Changing to nongendered pronouns will fix everything. This article currently is appropriate for GTS not 'macrophila' as a whole. WE EXSIST STOP IGNORING US." Jitenshasw has stated that he or she is "taking a stand." Also see this edit. I don't see what is left for me to do on this matter, except take this article off my WP:Watchlist and let these editors have their way with it. I came upon the article in an incidental manner anyway. As far as I'm concerned, the article should be indefinitely WP:Semi-protected. Flyer22 (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

From what I am observing in the article history for Macrophilia, ‎Jitenshasw is in violation of the 3RR policy (also, looks to have edited while logged out here), has engaged in edit warring today, and a 24 hour block for edit warring should be applied. From what I am observing on talk:Macrophilia, ‎Jitenshasw has made it clear that (s)he does not care about Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, and that (s)he'll continue to edit war and violate Wikipedia's policies despite being asked to stop. This user clearly has personal ties and conflict of interest with this article and subject area, as indicated with his/her edits here, here and here, and is a SPA by the looks of his/her contributions. This user also appears to possibly be forum shopping now? (see here)

With this behavior in mind, the edit warring that has already occurred, the clearly stated intention to keep edit warring and violating Wikipedia guidelines without any regard to Wikipedia and the community, I believe that a topic ban should be imposed indefinitely upon ‎Jitenshasw and any articles regarding sexuality, broadly constructed. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm redacting my support for a 3RR/edit war block due to the below statement made by ‎Jitenshasw, so long as it doesn't continue. I'm striking out my support for a ban at this time, as I see that possible collaboration progress is being made as well. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I've already stopped the editing. I wasn't aware of the 3 revert rule, it wont happen again.

Dear administrator reading this. I realize you might not be part of this community, but it is a thriving and diverse one. I've been part of the macrophilia community for over 10 years as an artist and contributor. I run a NYC based Macro/Micro meetup which has women members (like myself) and many gay members as well. Here, take a look at a photo from our last meet in Central Park: http://img09.deviantart.net/c3e2/i/2015/252/5/b/untitled_by_jitenshasw-d98yki4.jpg While I'll agree that the majority of those 'out' are male and heterosexual, there is a significant portion of us who read the article in it's current form, and it does not read true to us.

This is an important matter of identity as most macrophiles like myself think about size on a day to day basis. Women in the community already often suffer greatly because their own desires are not respected by men. We're are supposed to assume this is a Giantess fetish by default, and if we don't conform, we're sometimes ostracized. That is not correct. Our own preferences should be respected! This has been argued before, and I strongly feel that changing the pronouns in the articles will keep information the same but without excluding women and those in the LGBTQ community. Please think about the morality on the subject. Many women (including myself) have suffered greatly from the back and forth of harassment and ostracizing tactics used by some men in the community. Please give us a voice.

We are real people who suffer deeply with identity issues due to this fetish. I'm a normal person, a wife, a hard worker. I go about my day to day silently suffering with this insecurity, my friends, family and co-workers unaware. I want to look at this page and say that I identify with this, THIS IS ME. But that's not what I'm reading. This is all wrong. A simple genderless pronoun change would solve that and make everyone happy. Jitenshasw (talk) 00:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I would support the gender neutral wording "giant" (as opposed to giantess) while keeping in language noting that it's primarily a heterosexual male fetish. clpo13_(talk) 00:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• I support the editing of this article based on reliable sources, like we ought to. There is only one actual book cited, this one, in the article--the rest ranges from Salon to Gawker. In other words, the sourcing for this is atrocious, and that book actually suggests that it's a male fantasy, supporting gendered language. That's not to say this is what it is, but the sources right now support the gendering (the newspaper articles certainly do). Honestly, I couldn't care less if this were ungendered--though I do object to this article having been an alt-forum, a directory of fetishistic links, and a collection of movies that supposedly play into the fetish. Feel free to peruse the academic literature, or MEDRS, as should be appropriate for such an article--nothing. Perhaps James Cantor is ready for AfD number 2. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• I am absolutely not willing to get involved here, but one source that could potentially provide some context is: Canning, Richard (2012). "What you weren't reading in 1952". The Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide. 19 (4): 16. Unfortunately, I do not have access to this source to confirm its utility to the topic. Regardless, there are sporadic discussions in reliable literature; pronoun selection notwithstanding, I would definitely oppose a trip to AFD for the topic. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Andering J. REDDSON

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Andering J. REDDSON is repeatedly adding conspiratorial bullshit to Talk:Umpqua Community College shooting in violation of TALK, SOAPBOX and NOTHERE:

• [231]
• [232]
• [233]
• [234]

—ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 04:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I note the first section heading on the user's talk page: ¿Got A Problem With Me? Tough.
I've seen combative WP:NOTHERE, but I can't recall seeing it advertised before. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The entire talk page could be a dissertation on DGAF. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 05:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

It just wouldn't be a mass shooting in the USA if someone did not say that it was a hoax/false flag operation. I can't count the times that this has been said. WP:REDFLAG and WP:FRINGE apply here, and also WP:BLP if it is claimed that living people involved in the shooting have lied.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Read the user's page if you want a good laugh. AJR seems to be on a desperate "quest" to fix Wikipedia's reliability issues—after using the site as a source for a paper, evidently without checking the actual sources, which was AJR's own damned fault—and then spends time here spouting unsourced conspiracy theories?! Ironic, much? —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 05:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm surprised this user hasn't been indeffed yet. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Where's that facepalm template...ah, well. I have a previous history with this editor for full disclosure which can mostly be found here. I fully concur with ATinySliver's description which leads me to wonder the same thing that Erpert expresses above. It should be noted that you will find many of his contribs as IPs (because he signed them) by searching on REDDSON. He has numerous talk page comments but few article contributions. I could never fully make up my mind as to whether he was trolling us or if he is really that way. He hasn't changed in years. I would suggest a lack of understanding and that he has his reasons for all those talk page posts. Please be warned that if you go to discuss something with him that you must be part of the liberal leftists that control Wikipedia. You belong to a cabal of conspirators of one form or another if you consider yourself a Wikipedian at all. The forces of evil must not prevail. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

He should be blocked as WP:NOTHERE, especially with this sort of proclamation. He clearly doesn't think much of Wikipedia or its policies, especially those on collaboration. If he wants an encyclopedia that fits his worldview, there's always Conservapedia. clpo13_(talk) 07:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Note that an off-topic comment by REDDSON was removed from this thread. While I agree that his comment doesn't belong here, it is further evidence of using Wikipedia as a soapbox. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah NinjaRobotPirate, but if Calton hadn't taken it upon themself to remove it, this matter might have been taken care of already. As it is, I'm editing an archive. Drmies (talk) 02:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lord and Taylor COI editor - various IPs

74.76.148.38 (talk · contribs) - only currently active IP, but there have been at least three others.

This is a problem brought over from WP:COIN. A series of IP editors is editing articles related to Lord & Taylor, their related companies, and their CEO. Details at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:74.76.148.38_.2F_Lord_and_Taylor. Previous WP:COIN activity: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_91#Saks_Fifth_Avenue_marketing_team The IP editors are all SPAs, confining their edits to this family of companies. There's no declared COI, but one edit comment ([235], with comment "(redundent Information - as per request of HBC)" indicates a undeclared COI.) The edits are mostly OK, but bad news, such as store closings and poor financial performance, has been deleted, leaving only happy marketing-like talk. Edit warring warnings have been placed on the IP's talk page by various editors.[236][237]. The IP editor deletes the warnings, but does not respond. Suggest a week or two of block on the IP for now, since they won't talk to anybody. We need to get their attention. John Nagle (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

See also discussion at Talk:Saks_Fifth_Avenue#Edit-warring_by_.22SAKS_FIFTH_MARKETING_TEAM.22. What we have here is a failure to communicate. John Nagle (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, this is the only notification I have regarding this matter. All edits I've listed reasons why, and the "negative" information I believe you are talking about has been transferred to the parent company's page, which was explained clearly in the reasons for editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.148.38 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 6 October 2015‎

The IP just attempted to blank this discussion as well as one at Lord & Taylor, and an immediate block would appear to be in order. JohnInDC (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• 72 hours hardblocked for disruptive editing.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The IP editor just contacted me on my talk page. I suggested he register an account, declare a COI, and we'd go from there. About the same time, the IP editor blanked the discussion on AN/I, and was, of course, blocked for that. I see they also deleted their block notice on their talk page, which has been restored by the blocking admin. Well, we tried asking nicely first, and it didn't work. John Nagle (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I would also suggest bringing all affected articles to WP:RPP. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

No unusual edits have happened on the relevant articles since the block, and the articles are now on many watchlists. I'm inclined to wait and see what happens. John Nagle (talk) 00:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War

Something strange is happening with moves related to this page. It has been unilaterally moved without discussion to this page. People copy-paste large chunks of text. I think this page should be moved back to the original title and move-protected. All procedures must be properly followed. If people want to rename the page, they must make an RfC and wait for consensus. Furthermore, it seems that someone modified redirect to hinder moves by other participants. This is just another reason to move it back per this Arbcom decision. Administrative attention required. My very best wishes (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

To move the page back, you may go to WP:RM#TR and file an Uncontroversial technical request (following the instructions and using the template), with the rationale that the prior move was made without discussion. An admin will then make the move shortly.

I believe this thread may therefore be closed, as ANI is not the venue desired. Softlavender (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

You can also ask David O. Johnson about the move, since he was the one who performed it. It would be good to get his input and collaborate with him. Notice of this ANI has been left on his talk page. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I can not go to Uncontroversial technical request because I think this move is controversial. My very best wishes (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Parsa1993 is the one who originally moved it to the current title [238]; I just moved it back. I thought their arguments in support of the move were valid. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Redacted my statement above. Sorry! ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I see. OK, one possible solution is to keep both pages for now and discuss their merging. Therefore, I just made revert in the redirect and marked them to discuss merging. But it seems that both pages have the same talk page.My very best wishes (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

There are now articles Russian intervention in Syria, Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War, Russia's role in the Syrian Civil War, Russian-Iranian military intervention in Syria, Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War, and Syrian Civil War. I may have missed others. There's extensive overlap. A neutral party is needed to organize that mess. Syrian Civil War should probably be the lead article, with the usual arrangements for subarticles. Is there some relevant WikiProject that can take this on? Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

And no one noticed WP:NOTNEWS, in their eagerness to get the scoop on the article, the title, the content. Drmies (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps this thread can be closed by now, but I think some admins should watch these pages.My very best wishes (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

One of those articles just hit the front page of Wikipedia. The subject is important enough and complex enough that it needs serious attention. But none of the task forces under Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Directory/History and society#Military and warfare seem to cover that conflict. The original poster here wasn't sure he was in the right place. There is no obvious right place. Sugggestions? John Nagle (talk) 01:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Status quo

There are currently only two overlapping articles (the others listed above by John Nagle are overarching parent articles), plus a redirect:

• Russian intervention in Syria (redirect)

(NOTE: currently a redirect, but with 23,000 bytes of content prior. HOWEVER, the page was a cut&paste move and rename of Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War anyway)

• Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War
• Russian-led military intervention in Syria [until 12:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC) titled Russian–Iranian military intervention in Syria]

Since September 30 there has been a Requested Move that Russian intervention in the Syrian Civil War → Russian intervention in Syria.

Since today there is now a MERGE proposal to Merge Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War into Russian-led military intervention in Syria.

Somewhere in all of the recent and fairly recent cut&paste moves (numerous), pop-up redirects, re-namings, double redirects, normal moves, and a change from hyphen to en-dash, things got duplicated (or possibly also overlapped or lost or whatever). (It's a bit hard to untangle as it involves half a dozen titles and page histories due to the various intervening titles and redirect pages.)

ADDENDUM: The two existing articles (Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War and the currently titled as of 13:01, 4 October 2015 UTC Russian-led military intervention in Syria) are virtually identical and one needs to be deleted.

-- Softlavender (talk) 04:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC); edited 05:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: EkoGraf has just moved Russian–Iranian military intervention in Syria to Russian-led military intervention in Syria. At least it wasn't a cut&paste move. I am going to re-do the titles above to reflect the change. Softlavender (talk) 12:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Softlavender Yeah I moved it from Russian–Iranian to Russian-led because the addition of Iranian to the title was unilateral and had not gone through any discussion at the talk page (while a discussion for another rename had still been ongoing). I wanted to change it back to the title from before the addition of Iranian (to preserve the status quo) but couldn't so I moved it to a title that seemed to be at least one of those most agreed to on the talk page. If I made some kind of mistake by doing so I apologize. EkoGraf (talk) 05:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I personally don't have any serious objection ... other than it happened to add to the confusion and the amount of housekeeping I had to do to keep track of titles in this thread, and also it created some confusion in the discussions on those article pages. I think it was a good move; it's just the whole past 5 days has been a nightmare of about 10 articles or titles being created on the exact same subject. Hopefully it will all get straightened out in the next five or so days, and all the extraneous articles will be deleted. And for heaven's sake people need to remember that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Softlavender (talk) 06:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

All of these pages should be labelled as under general sanctions

See Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. See Wikipedia:General sanctions#Community-authorised sanctions. They need talk page notices and Edit notices for the article pages. Doug Weller (talk) 12:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Use {{Editnotice SCW 1RR}} for the article page and {{Syrian Civil War sanctions}} for the talk page. To make an edit notice visit Wikipedia:Editnotice. Doug Weller (talk) 12:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, most of these are done, although some of the redirect pages may need them if they are moved back. Doug Weller (talk) 13:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

It might be worthwhile for an admin to lock Russian-led military intervention in Syria, merge Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War into it, and delete Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War before unlocking. That would save a lot of hassle because the articles are being edited as we speak, leading to more and more text to worry about. After the deletion and unlock, people can debate about the title as much as they please. Anyone who then moves without RM consensus, or cut&paste creates a new article, should receive an immediate block. Softlavender (talk) 13:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Block requests can go to RPP, but it's not our role to make content or merge decisions such as the one above. Doug Weller (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The later article was an exact duplication of the first, and I've seen admins fix that sort of situation before it got out of hand. Given that the articles are being treated as newspapers with daily if not hourly updates, the sooner the page duplication is zapped the better, in my mind. That's my personal opinion, anyway. Softlavender (talk) 13:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Nothing prevents anyone from making an AfD or using an RfC to discuss merging. I do not think this case is anything special. My very best wishes (talk) 15:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• Note there is also the page 2015 Russian air raids in Syria. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC).
  

Oh yes, we now have four pages about exactly the same: Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War (that was the first one; I think it should remain), Russian–Iranian military intervention in Syria, Russian-led military intervention in Syria and 2015 Russian air raids in Syria... My very best wishes (talk) 02:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

No, there are only three; you are confusing the redirect. There is the first article, its duplicate, and then the content fork (the latter which I just AfDed -- thanks Rich Farmbrough for pointing that one out). Softlavender (talk) 02:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

That's a progress. This merging discussion needs closing and action. I think the consensus was to keep page Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War and make Russian-led military intervention in Syria a redirect, while keeping its edit history to allow merging of content (the pages are not exactly the same). My very best wishes (talk) 13:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I've closed the discussion as "merge". I'm not familiar with the topic, so I'm not going to do the merge itself; I redirected "Russian-led" to "Russian", added a note in the page history reminding reusers that the histories of both pages are now necessary for attribution. Hopefully someone else will merge the pages, simply copying content from old revisions of "Russian-led" into the current edition of "Russian". Nyttend (talk) 00:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• No logic. The clone article Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War (created by copypaste on 3 Oct with small number of useful edits) must be redirected to original article Russian-led military intervention in Syria created on 30 Sep), but not vice versa, as of now! Also in the first RM section it was consensus for "in Syria" name, but against "in the Syrian Civil War". 178.94.165.139 (talk) 08:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC) P.S. Softlavender's proposition in this thread will be the best solution, I think. Admins, please do as he said. 178.94.165.139 (talk) 08:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Paco Arespacochaga and Aleck Bovick AFDs

I made a number of contentious AFDs (at least by the Wikipedia Tambayan Project (see [239])), the most important of which now are those of Paco Arespacochaga (see [240], [241], [242]) and Aleck Bovick (see [243], [244], [245]).

I was made aware of this largely by the efforts of User:Obsidian Soul and User:Jondel, at least when those efforts were positive and informative. As a result, I either withdrew the nomination, or if too late changed my own vote to keep in these two cases, a public acknowledgement of my failed vetting process. Is there anything wrong with either of those things? I even tried to improve the articles (both a tad threadbare) by adding text from sources both Tambayan editors assured me were reliable Philippines media sources. I don't know what has happened but I have since been subjected to verbal abuse and threats from @Obsidian Soul, accusing me of adding "potentially libelous" info and being POINTY by having changed my own votes (with detailed explanations for the record) because @Obsidian Soul claims I am afraid of "losing" the AFDs. I can say that, unfortunately, I have lost AFDs in the past by WP:SNOW and I made no attempt to either withdraw the ill-fated noms or change my votes.

In other words, I realized that in certain of the AFDs recently nominated I was wrong -- yes I admit it. And I acted on my conscience, and did what I believed was appropriate. Now, I am threatened (with opening an AN/I) and accused by this seriously passive aggressive editor (@Obsidian Soul) for doing what he relentlessly told me I should have done from the beginning. I cannot control my "western bias" but I can try to make things right as best I can. I genuinely have no idea what @Obsidian Soul is going on about this time, but I am sick and tired of it. Quis separabit? 19:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt: verbal abuse? Are you claiming Off-wiki harassment? RichardOSmith (talk) 20:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

NO, no. Sorry, not "verbal". I am old (way pre-millenial) and did not use the right term. I meant what I consider verbally abusive wording in many but certainly the most recent (today) postings by @Obsidian Soul. Quis separabit? 20:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

verbal ≠ oral. common misconception. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Obsidian Soul notified. Your pings won't work that way. To ping an editor you need use this format {{ping|Obsidian Soul}}. Also, pings are not considered appropriate notification for AN/ANI. Blackmane (talk) 23:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Blackmane: I did notify @Obsidian Soul (see [246]). Sorry if I didn't do it right. Quis separabit? 23:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

It's unclear to me what kind of remedy you are seeking. Can you post diffs of these "threats"? Because telling an editor you are going to bring a dispute to a noticeboard is not a sanctionable offense.Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I know that. What I want him to do is stop making inflammatory comments, accusing me of making "potentially libelous comments" that come straight from a reflink he recommended to me as a reliable Filipino media source and when I haven't done anything wrong and have no idea what he's talking about, and harassing me with his passive-aggressive nonsense. Not all communications have to be done at an AFD discussion. I have a talk page. And those diffs are at the top of this AN/I but there may be others I can scare up. Quis separabit? 23:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, I didn't notice that it was mixed in with the section above my notification. Blackmane (talk) 02:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade. Your "improvements" to the articles on Bovick and Arespacochaga are potentially libelous and violate WP:BLP despite your oh-so-innocent protestations otherwise. And that is behavior actually worthy of an AN/I. Your edit summary of "very important biodata added" is a dig at how you think the WP:RS provided in the AfD discussions were not satisfactory because they're subjectively "gossip" to you. Whatever bullshit you think you can get away with in the talk pages (including your persistence in using inappropriate {{od}} templates on everything because I criticized your indenting practices in your last AN/I against me, and admins don't seem to mind), don't carry it over to the articles. Period. It's actually funny that you're the one claiming harassment. You've accused me of nefarious things how many times now? Three? In AN/I no less. If that isn't classic WP:POINTY behavior, I don't know what is. All because I had the nerve to tell you to do a WP:BEFORE in your nominations. Something several other editors have also told you to do. If admins can't see through that, it's not my problem. Believe me, I don't want to deal with you ever again either. But again, keep your vindictiveness in the talk pages. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 23:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Notice he refuses to address his accusation that I posted "potentially inflammatory text" from the url he referred me to. The indenting nonsense is his own paranoia. He told me on one occasion to fix my indenting. I did my best twice on a long confusing thread. He didn't like it and re-indented it himself. It's absurd.

"All because I had the nerve to tell you to do a WP:BEFORE in your nominations. Something several other editors have also told you to do. If admins can't see through that, it's not my problem" -- this is untrue. He repeats the same thing over and over. I have acknowledged making some AFD nominations that I shouldn't have -- whether because of sloppy research or what he calls "Western bias". Does he want me to wear a hairshirt or a sackcloth with ashes? Do penance? Should I debase (that's a euphemism) myself? I acknowledged his points (to the extent I agree with them, depending on the individual AFD nom) already and thanked him when his advice was constructive. I withdrew some noms and/or changed my votes. He refuses to acknowledge or accept or update anything or turn down the passive-aggressive relentlessness and yet I am vindictive. Quis separabit? 00:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

For starters, how about dropping the wide-eyed pretense of being the innocent victim? You know perfectly well what you're doing. Just like this can not ever be construed as "fixing" anything. And no. I'm definitely not avoiding it. I am accusing you of adding potentially libelous information to articles to illustrate a point. Why don't you explain how a paragraph on implied nepotism is a good thing? Or how someone's mother being a dancer ("in Cubao") with 18 children from three different men, who died "from blood loss [due to giving birth repeatedly]" is "very important biodata"?

Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. -WP:BLP

-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

For the hundredth time, the indenting problem you are obsessing about was not an attempt by me to gaslight you. I tried to fix it twice and gave up, and you fixed it. No one else complained. If I am misusing {{od}} then let someone (not you) tell me how so, because you are no longer credible on that point. Quis separabit? 00:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

You must have missed the point of my last post. So here. I'll repeat it: why don't you explain how a paragraph on implied nepotism is a good thing? Or how someone's mother being a dancer ("in Cubao") with 18 children from three different men, who died "from blood loss [due to giving birth repeatedly]" is "very important biodata"?-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I am very glad it was your mess up because when I was posting my lengthy response I hit an edit conflict so now things are not out of sequence, I hope. The quote regarding Arespacochaga:

"His father was a former vice president of a production company, Paco had easy access to famous persons in the local showbiz industry – such as the late Fernando Poe Jr, actor and currently Manila Mayor Joseph Estrada, and star-builder German Moreno, thus opening valuable doors for him to begin his career." [247]

came from the url @Obsidian Soul recommended to me from the website of the GMA Network and I don't or didn't think it indicates nepotism, any more than the fact that Alfred Hitchcock's daughter Patricia had roles in some of her father's films or that Liza Minnelli appeared on her mother's television show, or that Barry Van Dyke had a long-running gig on his father's Diagnosis: Murder. If this is something potentially libelous I would guess Paco Arespacochaga sued GMA when it was published in print. Oh, no, wait, he didn't. I guess Arespacochaga had no problem with but somehow @Obsidian Soul does. And I may as well add that @Obsidian Soul's edit summary deleting the info was "remove per WP:BLP. I think it's time to open an AN/I". So he is twistedly seeking reasons to harass me, using innocent quoted text.

As far as Bovick goes, it's the same thing. I wanted to spruce up a threadbare article. Yes I found the fact that her late mother bore 18 children (by 3 husbands) interesting, in fact fascinating, and her death from leukemia thus a multifold tragedy. The statement "from blood loss [due to giving birth repeatedly]" came from her own daughter, Bovick! What did you think, I made it up? I certainly wasn't posing it as a medical opinion, only her daughter's comments. I cast no aspersions on anyone (see [248]). Overreaction somehow by somebody?? Doesn't anyone see anything wrong here? If I made any mistakes in using reliably sourced biographical background material, I apologize. I don't think I did but .... Quis separabit? 01:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes. My link. And you wished to illustrate how those links might not be reliable, right? Gee whiz, that oughta show em! I gave it to demonstrate WP:GNG, not so you can pick the most sensationalist part and insert it into the articles. Have someone else explain WP:BLP to you. Because I'm not doing it. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary,[[WP:POINTY| I was confident the links were/are reliable as I trusted you. You've accused me of POINTY about a hundred thousand times since we crossed paths. Your accuracy at tossing that dart hasn't improved despite the extensive practice you've had. Quis separabit? 02:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

They are reliable. I do not wish to interact with you further. If someone else disagrees with my reversion of your edits, or actually believes that you were acting in good faith, I wish to hear their opinion. Otherwise, this thread is as pointless as your earlier two accusations of stalking. I have much better things to do. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 02:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, all of the arguments about content should stay on the article's talk page. As for the rest - apart from someone telling you two to leave each other the hell alone, what administrative remedy are you seeking here? What do you want us to do? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

He should desist from communicating with me, making edit summary threats, launching endless POINTY accusations, especially at AFD discussions, and bring whatever issues he may have in future to an objective third party or admin. Quis separabit? 14:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Since Obsidian Soul says that she or he does not want to interact with Rms125a, and Rms125a doesn't seem to want to get communications from Obsidian Soul, that sounds to me like both editors would be glad to have an interaction ban between them. If both were to indicate their agreement here, it can be logged and this thread could be closed. BMK (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

So no one actually sees the problem with his edits, huh? Go figure. You really believe his little story about finding it fascinating that someone's mother has 18 children by 3 men and is hinted to be a sex worker, and that's why he labels it as "very important biodata"? Or the fact that he picked the one part in a long news article that can be taken the wrong way (nepotism) and then includes it in Wikipedia under a bullshit rationale of using a reliable source that someone else recommended to him?

Regardless if they are in the sources or were actually spoken (in jest) by the subjects, they violate WP:BLP. And he's doing it in the obvious hope that a third party would notice that the links I gave in support of my Keep !votes in his AfDs (as he's emphasized a few times) may have some things that are sensationalist. That is WP:POINTY is it not?

Let me ask just one question to the administrators here: are his two additions to those articles potentially libelous or not? If you can say no to that and can restore those content in good conscience per WP:BLP, then I would accept an WP:IBAN. If not then no. I dislike interacting with him intensely, but I'd rather not have my ability to fix his childishness gimped by bureaucratic bullshit if no one else bothers to do so. I spent 30 minutes fixing his indent trolling in his last frivolous AN/I just to make it readable because no one else apparently saw any problem with that behavior either.

And no. Despite my dislike of him as an editor, this is not personal. I suggest looking at his actions, not his words.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 18:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

"You really believe his little story about finding it fascinating that someone's mother has 18 children by 3 men and is hinted to be a sex worker" -- I hinted she was a "sex worker"?? That's news to me. Since the quote came from her daughter, I seriously have to wonder where the "sex worker" angle came in. Because this is the first time I am hearing it.

I just caught the error by another editor in synopsizing my editing, and I must, as a moral imperative, clarify that I did not say "3 men", I said "3 husbands", as per her own daughter (Bovick)'s comments. Quis separabit? 01:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

While you do that, you should also clarify that you copied the whole paragraph verbatim without quotes (yes that's WP:COPYVIO too, but whatever). The author said "husband". Not you.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 02:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

"are his two additions to those articles potentially libelous or not?" - If they are they delete them and block me. I no longer give a shit. By all means let him fix what he finds objectionable and I will ask for advice from a third party if I disagree.

"I spent 30 minutes fixing his indent trolling in his last frivolous AN/I just to make it readable because no one else apparently saw any problem with that behavior either" -- indenting obsession paranoia (again; see above); I don't know how I am screwing up so badly at indenting yet no one else mentions it.

(Redacted) Quis separabit? 18:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

That last paragraph went way over the line. Don't do that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. Quis separabit? 19:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

Since Rms12a@hotmail.com and Obsidian Soul didn't respond to my suggestion for a voluntary interaction ban, but preferred to keep sniping at each other instead, I propose a non-voluntary interaction ban imposed by the community; your standard off-the-shelf pret a porter iBan, with no unusual bells and whistles.

Not even going to answer my question? This isn't even a content dispute. Were his edits in good faith and do they pass WP:BLP? It's a simple enough question that actually addresses the underlying problem to all this. An iBan is convenient, but it doesn't fix anything. Unless you're actually agreeing that I'm doing this to "stalk" and "harass" him? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 23:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support - As proposer. BMK (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I apologize, @Beyond My Ken -- I was unaware of the "suggestion for a voluntary interaction ban" thus did not apologize reply, although I have been keeping tabs on this page obviously and did not see anything which required my response. Apologies. I need to read upon on IBAN; hopefully it will work. I will contact you if I have any questions. Thanks. Quis separabit? 00:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@BMK: I think I understand. One question -- if a there is an edit that needs or can be substantively improved made by the other IBAN-involved editor, does one go to AN/I or start a talkpage discussion? How would that be handled, in the unfortunate event that such a situation arose? Thanks in advance for the 411. Quis separabit? 00:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that you bring your suggested change to the talk page, and allow another editor to make the change if they agree with it. You do not revert the edit yourself, or engage in discussion with the editor you're I-Banned with. BMK (talk) 02:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support The interaction between the users is toxic. Rms125a@hotmail.com appears to have made good faith attempts to learn from his mistakes and even if his attempts have been imperfect Obsidian Soul's rebuff goes far beyond a simple failure to AGF. If these two editors plan on working anywhere 'near' each other at least an interaction ban will provide consequences for continuing the conflict. Interaction bans do often cause trouble but in this case letting the situation fester seems worse. It would be better if both editors accepted the IBAN voluntarily but Obsidian Soul appears to have refused above. Jbh^Talk 00:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

"Appears". And still no one actually seeks to understand why I reverted him or why I left a note concerning his edits, other than just assuming it's a personal vendetta. Even though unlike him, I don't have a history of such behavior. I accept the voluntary iBan, if that's the only thing you can come up with. I'm tired. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Obsidian Soul: Yes, I did seek to understand both of your positions before I commented. I think you, quite rightly, got angry at some poorly researched AfDs and the conflict spun out of control from there. You were right Rms125a was making some bad nominations and they have admitted it. What you see as POINTy behavior I choose to see, barring clear evidence otherwise, as an attempt to learn, move on and work to repair damage caused by carelessness. This is what we want editors to do and we are bound to assume good faith when others try correct mistakes. I hope the iBan will give each of you time and distance to see each other as something other than opponents. I do empathize with your frustration, assuming good faith can at times be a pain but without that all conflicts here would turn into iBans and Wikipedia would close up because no one could talk with each other. Jbh^Talk 01:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

These aren't clear enough? [249] [250]. He's not that stupid or (given his time on Wikipedia) that clueless about WP:BLP as to not realize that what he inserted say pretty terrible things about the subjects. When he seemingly retracted his bad AfDs ("reluctantly" as he characterized it), I didn't comment. That was AGF. But then he added those. What will he do next to "repair damage" in the AfDs that gets kept? Insert another titillating factoid bordering on scandalous from one of the sources I gave to demonstrate GNG? There's assuming good faith, and then there's swallowing bullshit. That said, moot point. As long as he doesn't do anything like that again (and no, I don't mean the AfDs), I'll be absolutely ecstatic if I don't ever deal with him ever again. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Obsidian_Soul RMS's edits did not violate BLP. He had multiple reliable sources for what he was putting in , the sources said what he said they said, so no BLP violations. KoshVorlon 11:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

KoshVorlon: I've quoted the applicable lines from WP:BLP below. Also take note that the policies on WP:DUE and WP:COPYVIO are also relevant here.

WP:BLP: Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.

WP:BLPSTYLE: Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content.

WP:BLPGOSSIP:Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject.

Arespacochaga is a musician in a highly successful band in the Philippines in the 90s. Do you think mentioning his parents' connections to politicians and high-ranking executives in show business when he was growing up is relevant to the article? Bovick in turn is an actress. Does her mother's occupation (btw, in case most of you are as clueless as he is, "dancer in Cubao" is a euphemism for strippers), number of husbands and children, also qualify as "very important biodata"? Take into consideration that the articles as they stand are virtually empty of anything else.

Lastly, he did not find those sources. Neither did he use "multiple reliable sources" for the claims. He used one each (this for Bovick and this for Arespacochaga), all of them are sources that I found and gave in support of the AfD discussions on them. Both of them are published by reliable secondary sources (a national newspaper and a national TV network, respectively). Both of them are lengthy articles discussing the subjects' lives. And while the sources themselves are reliable, the content ranged from factual information to irrelevant trivia (that again, can be taken as libelous in the wrong context). He ignored all the rest of the information, and copied just those paragraphs verbatim to our articles, improper tone and untranslated Taglish and all. You really think there are no problems with that?

Just because a source is reliable, doesn't mean you should treat everything in it is appropriate for a Wikipedia article. Otherwise we might as well go ahead and add the snippet about Bovick showing her boobs at her first audition.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Obsidian Soul I saw your response, but waited to see if anyone else wanted to weigh in first. To answer you, BLPGossip would apply if what was in the articles was actually gossip. you removed | this from Paco Arespacochaga and | this from Aleck Bovick . The source for Paco was found in the GMA network, which is described [| in this entry ] as "a major commercial television and radio network in the Philippines.", not a tabloid, a major network. The source for Aleck Bovick was PhilStar, aka Philippine Star was is described [| here ] as "...the leading print and digital newspaper in the Philippines..." again, not a tabloid, but the leading newspaper, a tabloid wouldn't be described that way. Second, both links quote either the band or the person as the source for their information, so no, it's not gossip.

As for BLPSTYLE, what you removed was less than 1 paragraph of information, that by itself makes it no a style violation, more importantly, it didn't involve guilt by association, etc...

As for BLP itself, the wording was actually conservative, it could have been worded a lot worse (and a lot more un-conservatively!) Again, the sources in both cases were either the band or the artist themselves, as reported by reliable sources.

So, none fail BLP, and no one else has supported this claim either. You appear to be whitewashing both entries, in effect, removing things you don't like. Lay off that article and RMS as well. KoshVorlon 16:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

KoshVorlon You just repeated what I said. -_- I'll say this again for the millionth time: the sources are from ME. I gave them to him to support my Keep !vote in the AfDs on them. Even how you described GMA and PhilStar is almost exactly like how I described them to him. Because unlike you, he didn't bother to find out about them at all initially.

And read it again: "whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." - gossip does not mean false. Sensationalism is also gossip. The giving of undue weight to information or events which are irrelevant to the subject matter but are exciting to the reader. Trivia. It doesn't matter if it comes from the subjects themselves, or whether even if they are true. The question is if they're relevant to their notability and appropriate for an encyclopedic article on them. I asked you if you understood what WP:DUE WEIGHT means and its significance in BLP articles. And I have my answer. You do not.

Yes, I removed 1 paragraph of information in each article which each had around 4 sentences in total. That is the entire point. They were the lengthiest part of the articles and they had nothing to do with why they were notable. That is undue weight.

Lastly, you saying that the wording itself is "conservative" is the part where I can truly tell that you didn't read or understand what I wrote previously. Both are COPYRIGHT VIOLATIONS. He copied the paragraphs without changing anything from the articles. One of them (on Bovick) included a joke (in Taglish) by Bovick that her mother died of blood loss due to having too many children (she didn't, she died by leukemia). Both of them are literally taken out of context, and the tone is literally that of your usual "showbiz news" segments. How you can characterize that as conservatively written is beyond me.

WP:BLP is not simply about WP:RS, it's also about context and due weight. If it wasn't, what prevents me from adding the part from the same article where Bovick confesses that she showed her breasts in her first audition? Or do you think that that's perfectly okay too?

He has explicitly stated that he wants to delete the "Miley Cyruses" from Wikipedia. He ignored all the earlier comments on his refusal to do a WP:BEFORE until very recently when too many (non-Filipino) editors started chiming in, and has stated that he has no intentions of going over possibly wrongly deleted AfDs in the past. So I highly doubt that he added those paragraphs out of the goodness of his heart either.

I'll ignore the accusation of whitewashing. That's pretty much what RMS originally accused me of too, and the reason why I lost my temper originally. Just note that I have edited those articles a grand total of ONCE. I do not write articles on Philippine pop celebrities, nor am I a fan of any.

Also note that I have never posted on his talk page. I have only interacted with him on the AfDs in question, on the topic on his AfDs in the Philippine Wikiproject (which I did not start and involved a lot more editors), and here in AN/I (which he started). Note as well that I have only posted in his AfDs when they were listed at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Philippines. I did not find them by looking at his contribs. I didn't even notice his edits on Arespacochaga's and Bovick's articles until he explicitly mentioned them in their AfDs. I have also been commenting on other AfDs in that list, and not all of my !votes are a mindless "Keep".

He, on the other hand, has taken me to AN/I three times, accused me (and at least a couple of other editors) of stalking and gaming the system, accused me of COI, and slyly accused me of either sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry (from what I can tell anyway) in another AfD because I misread a name of another !voter, and (despite his innocent protestations otherwise) intentionally added {{od}} templates after every single paragraph since I first indicated that he was misusing them.

And after all that, you think that it is I who was doing the harassing? Is it because he talks so much nicer around here? I've made no secret of my temper, nor do I believe that WP:AGF trumps WP:SPADE at all times. And this right here, is absolute horseshit. No worries about me leaving RMS alone though. As I've said repeatedly, to me, interacting with him is at most a necessary unpleasantness that I would very much prefer to avoid. But yes, good point, no one has stepped up to back me up or even just confirmed my worries. Not even simple factual things like the copyright violation. That disturbs me more than you think with regards to the state of the "community".

Carry on then. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 18:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Question(s)

What is the OP alleging, and where are the diffs to support his allegations? (Otherwise, this thread is just a meaningless series of backbiting and bickering.) And what remedies is the OP possibly seeking (or else why post here?)? Softlavender (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and page moves

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

NuYorkCity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has been here for eight days, in which time he has made 16 page moves, all (as far as I can see) adding closing parentheses to article and article talk titles. There's also a smattering of disruptive / vandalism type edits elsewhere. I can't decide whether to go to SPI (seems possibly reminiscent of Tobias Conradi) or AIV, so I've plumped for here. GoldenRing (talk) 10:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: I think you need to warn them on their talk page before taking the issue to ANI, perhaps using the template {{subst:uw-disruptive1}}. Thanks, Rubbish computer 15:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

GoldenRing, you should probably provide diffs for the supposed vandalism, but as for the page moves, well, those do seem to be rather disruptive. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

From my brief look through, it seemed like every contribution from this account was vandalism. On a closer look I've found one or two that might be okay, but there are a considerable number that are introducing mis-spellings; admittedly they are almost all in this user's userspace. GoldenRing (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: I can't find any cases of "adding closing parentheses to article and article talk titles" - please give an example of this. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

GoldenRing may be misreading:

Coldry process ‎ (NuYorkCity moved page Coldry Process to Coldry process)

the closing parenthesis matches the opening one before NuYorkCity. In this case the removal of the capital P is probably correct.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC).

Boy, do I feel stupid. I learn again to take more care while jet-lagged... Probably best to close this and move along! Apologies to NuYorkCity and everyone who's wasted time on this. GoldenRing (talk) 09:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Threatening and discriminatory attitude from an editor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have been personally threatened by DaltonCastle, firstly by opening an [251] into sockpuppetry with no evidence and then harassing a moderator into divulging personal information about me despite there being no connection between myself and this other editor the user has been historically involved in conflicts with. Similarly, it has been insinuated that I have connections with a corrupt government simply for making edits attempting to prevent possible defamation, POV-pushing and serious breaches of Wikipedia's guidelines on a BLP this user created, while my (very modest and helpful) edits to this page are what seems to have set this user off on this tirade.

Using such mob-style threats to dissuade editors from making helpful edits has no place here and I find it deeply distressing that this occurs on Wikipedia. Furthermore, I feel increasingly discriminated against based on my nationality as this user appears to have personal antagonisms against people from Argentina. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

LOL! this is absurd. "set this user off on this tirade"?? "Personally threatened"???? I cant stress enough that this had nothing to do with you. Checkuser findings could have found information on any other editor. The admin said nothing on Wikipedia about what he found interesting. They also said nothing about it being related to you.

Remember when we both told each other to let the issue go? And you clearly have not. This is your last warning. Drag me through this again and Im reporting you for WP:Hounding. DaltonCastle (talk) 20:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, here is what the admin said that peaked my interest: "Frankly, I'm a bit confused when I trace the history of this case from its inception to the present, not just my own direct involvement, but that of other CheckUsers. I'm reluctant to say what confuses me, so I'll leave it at that." This refers to so much more than SegataSanshiro. Other users, CheckUsers, possibly other admins.. Its frustrating that SegataSanshiro did not see past this and assumed I had malicious intentions against him. DaltonCastle (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, if it's not about SegataSanshiro1, DaltonCastle, can you agree to give each other a lot of room, not follow each other's contributions and generally ignore each other from here on out? And by dropping the stick, that also means an end to bringing complaints about each other to noticeboards, article talk pages and user talk pages. This will only work if you both agree to put this SPI in the past and move on. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Harassment on user talk page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I feel that an editor has been harassing me on my Talk page (see Ahmed Mohamed), following a revert I made of an edit of his [252]. Can I get any help regarding this? --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC) (The editor has been notified of this discussion [253]. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC))

It's standard practice for editors to drop a warning about active discretionary sanctions. This should not be seen as harassment as the DS warning templates can be somewhat confusing to use and every arbitration case that results in discretionary sanctions has its own template. MarkBernstein was acting in good faith when he attempted to notify you of the American Politics arbitration case. I'll go see if ArbCom levied DS's on that case. Blackmane (talk) 22:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I see that MarkBernstein was able to find the DS templates relating to American Politics. Extra comment DS warnings are given to editors who edit in topics where DS have been authorised. It's more of a friendly warning so you won't inadvertently violate the sanctions and get yourself into hot water. Blackmane (talk) 22:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks but this editor essentially admitted that his templating wasn't friendly, "OK, I was trying to be friendly and informal. As that’s apparently unwelcome, I'll just use the template."[254] --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Bob, I haven't looked at the whole picture and there may be a DE complaint in there somewhere, but with respect I don't see a harasssment grievance. Harassment generally implies a pattern beyond five user talk posts in two days, I think, and unfriendliness doesn't violate WP:CIVIL. It's also possible the posts have some merit, as I said I haven't looked further into it. If a few user talk posts tick you off, delete them, shrug them off, and move on. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it would be good for Wikipedia to condone the editor's behavior by not taking any official action. I'm not looking for some major disciplining, but just something official that lets the editor know that he did something wrong. For example, an administrator could redact the template-placing edits from the history of my Talk page, along with the administrator posting a message on that editor's Talk page. Note that on the template's page is the following,[255] "Alerts are a neutral courtesy; never use them to intimidate, coerce, or shame another editor."

Oh, I just noticed that this editor has a history of being blocked, including for "personal attacks or harassment".[256] --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The purpose was to prove you were aware of the sanctions. Their block log is not relevant. You are now aware of the sanctions. We are not going to redact them from the history because their purpose is to sit in the history as proof you are aware.

Your quote above trying to prove they were being unfriendly is silly. They tried to tell you in a less formal tone, you demanded formal evidence, you got the formal template. HighInBC 00:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

As a further point, MarkBernstein was obviously trying to follow the example set out in WP:DTTR as you have been here for a number of years. Templating is usually reserved for newer editors. MarkBernstein explicitly states that "One of these days, I've got to learn to use the templates" indicating that they are not familiar with the ArbCom templates. You then totally jumped the shark with a link to [{WP:HARASS]] when no harassment had occurred. No administrative action, let alone even a warning, is warranted in this case. You edited an article that fell within [WP:NEWBLPBAN] and [WP:ARBAP2], you were given standard notification concerning these two Arbitration Cases. This is a courtesy. Blackmane (talk) 01:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I think these are very poor responses, that frankly don't deserve more attention from me. I think you're doing Wikipedia a disservice. Anyhow, I've had enough of this. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Repeated disruptions and extreme WP:NPA violations.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User Gabby Merger seems to go after anyone who dares to challenge their WP:POV. I came across the user when they inserted fringe claims about The Exodus. PiCo and I objected to inserting these religious fringe claims, but the user edit warred actively to keep them in [257], [258], [259], [260]. I informed the user about WP:BRD and WP:3RR, encouraging them to use talk[261]. Even their first comment on talk was mainly a WP:NPA violation against PiCo [262] though mild compared to other attacks. This comment [263] was 100% directed at insulting me, with no intent to discuss the article. The user has a very long history of personal attacks against any user who dares to cross them. Some examples, most of them dating back less than an hour.

• I'll follow you around and second-guess everything you do, and see how you like it (you definitely won't, and I definitely will...sauce for the goose [264] (Against Jeffro77).
• You seem to many times get arrogant, disingenuous, uncivil, jerky, rude, dishonest, unfair, and selective in your analysis. [265] (Against BlackCab).
• don't puke any more rude idiocy to me again [266] (Against BlackCab).
• Check your own demented and obsessed rude and arrogant goofy self, sonny. [267] (Against BlackCab).
• I'll be very apt in showing your hypocrisy, assuming bad faith, whines, ignorance, disrespect, disregard, and general incivility and bloviating. [268] (Against me)
• You have zero credibility therefore, and are irrelevant yourself. [269] (Against BlackCab, though on my talk).
• I stay away from blackcab because he's a toxic and venomous and extremely uncivil [270] Against BlackCab, on my talk).
• you're childish and biased [271]) (Against me)
• BlackCab neurotically decided to chime in bad-faith garbage here...like a stalker and troll. [272] Against BlackCab, on my talk).
• He has glaring double standards and incivility and bad faith attitudes and violations. (Against me).

Again, I'm sure there are many more examples if one checks, this long is just what I've seen in the last hours, mainly on my own talk and what BlackCap informed me about. Looking at these quotes from Gabby Merger, I think they make a very convincing case that the user is repeatedly violating WP:NPA and is WP:NOTHERE to contribute. Jeppiz (talk) 22:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Jezz has been on the article talk page, accusing and insulting. Also what do you think about this? Something no one else that I ever encountered on Wikipedia in my life. Jezz actually removed whole chunks of sentences from my comment on the Talk page, that he didn't like said about him, which was in response to insulting stuff he wrote about ME on the very same talk page. He undid part of my comment on the talk page. In total violation of Wikipedia guidelines. So he can write disrespectful negative things about someone on a talk page, accusing and abusing, but God forbid someone responds and says anything negative about him??!! He has glaring double standards and incivility and bad faith attitudes and violations. (And yes, wrongly putting additional jabs on my own talk page, beyond just a "3RR warning". But a hypocritical "I'll report you if you say not nice things about my on the article talk page" comment, though he has said VERY insulting things about me on the article talk page. Can dish out but can't take it. I do NOT have this same issue with the Doug Weller and the other contributor there, you'll notice.) But he removed whole sentences of my comment on the talk page, that he didn't like. Unbelievable. He has glaring double standards and incivility and bad faith attitudes and violations. (Also, I am careful not to violate 3RR.m And I've been discussing copiously, and this editor says I have ignored "Bold Revert Discuss" when that's all I've been doing for hours.) Please check out the stuff on the article TALK page. Not just edits and edit comments. Thanks. Regards.... Gabby Merger (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I did undo one comment by Gabby Merger on talk, as per WP:SOAP and WP:NPA as it was exclusively about me, not a word about the article of how to improve it. If an admin feels the comment belongs, they are of course free to reinstate it. Jeppiz (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive interactions by User:MusicAngels

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

MusicAngels (talk · contribs) is very disruptive in their interactions with other editors who disagree with them. I solicit the community's opinion what to do about this editor: possibly a community warning or ban, if that is possible, that prevents them from commenting on other editors; possibly a block, since their disruptive activity is still ongoing, with the latest example being today (Oct. 8).

Their most troublesome action is accusing editors who disagree with them of vandalism, trolling, and sockpuppetry; pursuing those accusations for weeks in multiple venues; and continuing to pursue them even after the allegations have been disproven. Other problematic actions include: removing other people's comments from article talk pages; telling IP editors they must register an account; misquoting Wikipedia policy to tell other users what to do or not to do; and making false statements. See details below.

Previous appearances at Wikipedia discussion boards:

• ANI, August 24, 2015 MA filed an ANI report against another editor, alleging "vandalism" because the other editor was removing links that MA added. The result was that MA was told the removals were not vandalism but valid cleanup, and they should have a civil discussion with the other user about it.
• Talk:AN, August 26 An IP user complained at WT:AN about MA's actions at articles created by MA, saying that they have "refused to allow editing, has labeled all editing vandalism, and disallowed any conversation." That discussion was never closed, but Bgwhite (talk · contribs) noted that despite being told at the previous ANI to stop battling over their content dispute with the other editor, MA continued adding the disputed links. User:Bgwhite also called attention to copyright problems identified at MA's articles by MusikAnimal (talk · contribs); those issues were seconded by other admins and eventually led to MA's articles being deleted.
• DRV, Septemer 3: After MA's article Poetry in the early 21st century was deleted for copyright violations, MA filed a DRV, claiming that the article had been deleted because of a "hoax" of "false copyright reports" made by a "disruptive IP hopping editor". (It looks to me as if the copyright problems had been discovered entirely by admins, including MusikAnimal and Bgwhite; see MA's talk page and the WT:AN report.) The consensus at the DRV was to endorse the deletion and reaffirm that the article had been a copyvio. Afterward, however, MA continued in other discussions to claim the deletion had been the result of a "hoax".[273] [274]
• ANEW, September 23: An IP reported MA to ANEW for edit warring; MA's response was to label the report a personal attack and imply socking by the complainer. Both users were warned and the page was full-protected.

Disruptive editing I have observed:

• Accusing and hounding other editors
  • I first became aware of MA when I was asked (by both the IP and MA) to look at MA's interaction with an IP editor whom MA was calling an IP-hopping troll. This was the user that had reported MA to WT:AN and to WP:ANEW. I discovered that MA kept re-adding that description, "IP-hopping troll accounts", to the IP's talk page after the IP removed it. MA re-added it four times by my count; see the history. I warned MA they were violating WP:NPA as well as WP:NOBAN and threatened to block them if they kept harassing the editor, and they stopped doing that. Meanwhile, still targeting that same IP user, MA launched a campaign to get a rangeblock against 192-range addresses and asked for a checkuser investigation and action from various admins: me, EdJohnston (talk · contribs), and SilkTork (talk · contribs). At EdJohnston's talk page, MA claimed that the 192 accounts were tracking MA's edits and accusing MA of things;[275] this turned out to be untrue. MA actually had been subjected to some trolling by accounts in the 128 range, and MA had worked with EdJohnston to try to get a block of that range. But a simple check of their contributions showed that the IPs on the 192-range list had no connection with each other; most of them had not edited in years. The IPs, except for the sole active editor on the list - the IP that MA had been targeting - also had no connection with MusicAngels. The evidence that this list was not a sockfarm was clearly laid out at EdJohnston's talk page. Ignoring that evidence, MA then took the list to a third admin, SilkTork, asking for a checkuser of the 192 range list and claiming again that it represented an IP-hopping troll.
  • Several editors have posted at my talk page, or at MA's talk page, saying they are afraid to edit any article where MA is involved because of MA's "seeking revenge long after anything happens that offends them", "vindictive editing", etc.

• Removing other people's comments from article talk pages: Discussed here (note that MusicAngel later changed the section heading from the original "STOP DELETING TALK" to "IP editor identified for vandalism by three separate bots"). The removals being talked about were at the now deleted page Talk:Poetry in the early 20th century; MA justified the removals on the grounds that they were from an IP and were not properly formatted.

• Trying to force IP editors to register an account. Example: [276], reprimanded by MusikAnimal [277]

• Misquoting Wikipedia policy to tell other users what to do or not to do
  • Ordering an IP editor to reveal their registered username, and telling them they must not edit until they did so; this was a direct violation of WP:LOGOUT. [278] [279] [280]
  • At the articles James D. Corrothers and Cordelia Ray, MA reverted a sourced addition, citing BRD and claiming that the person should have obtained consensus at the talk page before inserting it, which violates the principle of WP:BOLD.[281] [282] The other person offered sources at the talk page, but MA ignored the sources and did not discuss the content, instead continuing to insist that the other editor follow BRD, even while the other user actually WAS trying to discuss.

• Making false statements.
  • False edit summaries, such as a claim that re-adding the controversial link to their own article was "requested" or "had consensus with another editor", which was not true.[283] [284] [285]
  • The 192-range IP editor (the one MA kept calling an IP-hopping troll) said their address was the guest sign-in address of "a Maryland-area university".[286] MusicAngels told EdJohnston that the IP was from the University of Maryland.[287] Just a few hours later they said at my talk page that the IP was from Johns Hopkins.[288]

• Final straw as far as I am concerned: Today, October 8, MusicAngels posted a "who is it?" type comment on their own talk page, asking for help in identifying a couple of IP editors.[289] This looks like yet another attempt to "out" IP editors, even though WP policy on that subject had been explained to them several times. But what really brought me to the point of ANI: They posted the comment on October 8, but they falsified the timestamp to make it look as if they posted it on August 24! I had been waiting to see if they would learn from the various conversations and warnings they have received from multiple people. This last little act of deception, in connection with yet another attempt to "out" IP editors, convinced me that they have not learned anything and the community may need to step in. I do not wish to take any action myself because I could be considered WP:INVOLVED. --MelanieN (talk) 05:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Holy mackerel, that's a heck of a lot of disruptive and deceptive and against-policy behavior, and a heck of a lot of admin posts to their talk page, for an account not even 7 months old. I think this looks like a definite WP:NOTHERE block. Softlavender (talk) 05:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll have to agree with MelanieN's assessment, and that further action is necessary. I was not aware of the half of what has been presented above. I was under the impression the user suffered general incompetence and/or inability to get the point, but it looks like there's more behavioural concerns. The deceptive timestamp is baffling. I was trying to think of how a script might have malfunctioned but I can't come up with a good theory. MusicAngels anything to comment on that in particular? — MusikAnimal ^talk 06:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• Yikes. That looks bad, I would like to see the user give an account of xyrself, in the mean time I have blocked for disruptive editing. Guy (Help!) 10:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rakshak Singh repeatedly recreated

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The article Rakshak Singh keeps being recreated, and appears to be completely non-notable. Could someone please salt it to stop it and perhaps deal with the creator(s)? 82.35.107.31 (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it's been done: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?action=view&page=Rakshak_Singh&type=protect Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, so it has, thanks folks. 82.35.107.31 (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Akhil222

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Ever since their block, Akhil222 (talk · contribs) has been stubbornly posting unblock requests asking us to delete articles they've written and their user talk page, as well as invalid autoblock requests (not only are they directly blocked, they keep putting 127.0.0.1 in the IP field). I have multiple times attempted to point her to other Wikipediae since a language barrier is the biggest part of the equation, but they either cannot read what I'm saying or are refusing to listen to what I am saying. Since I don't see any way for the unblock requests or unreasonable deletion requests to stop (they blanked the user talk page only to post another invalid autoblock request immediately after, and have since tried to AfD their userpage) I'm requesting that their talk page access be revoked and a message left telling them, in as simple of terms as possible, to edit the Wikipedia for their native tongue. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistent altering of signatures.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Jdsteakley's talk page has been the subject of repeated signature changes from George Ho to Huon by 3 IPs. I asked what they were doing, and they removed the question. Please advise. GAB^Hello! 22:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

They just tried to delete this thread. GAB^Hello! 22:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

And again. This is getting frustrating. GAB^Hello! 22:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked, the talk page protected and everything has been reverted. -- GB fan 23:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks! GAB^Hello! 23:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threat made by user

A user has apparently made a legal threat at Special:Diff/684324996. Gparyani (talk) 23:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, he appears to be WP:BROTHERing here: Special:Diff/684326379 Gparyani (talk) 23:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Talking to what seems to be a youngish editor. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

If his younger brother did it, then he's in violation of the rules by not securing his account. So either way, he has to be indef'd. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Or we we can take the situation for what it is - a young editor messing about - and respond accordingly. If it happens again, block them. In the mean time... hey look! Squirrel! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I suppose that could be seen as a retraction of the legal threat and thus obviate the need for a preventative block. HighInBC 05:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Technically, yes. It would be a retraction of a legal threat, as childish as this situation is... :-) ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Reporting possible vandalism or bot error?

At Wikipedia:WikiProject Directory/Description/WikiProject Catholicism instead of a list of WP editors, there is this

---

Major General Asmerom Gerezgiher was born in Gezalamza, Eritrea. He was a founding member of the Eritrean People's Liberation Front (EPLF) in 1977. Before founding that organization he had joined the Eritrean Liberation Front (ELF) in 1966

and more....

---

History shows 08:27, 30 September 2015‎ Reports bot (talk | contribs)‎ . . (38,985 bytes) (+998)‎

At Reports bot, talk - it redirects to User talk:Harej instead of a bot talk page.

Help please! This is way beyond anything that I could fix with an easy Undo. Is this vandalism or a bot malfunction?

Regards (WP Catholicism member), JoeHebda (talk) 11:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

It was because of this edit -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 11:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Template:Corus Entertainment

I am requesting a ban for User:Spshu. This idiot has been nothing but disruptive, continually reversing edits despite them being at two levels of consensus. He has also been reversing edits at Disney XD (Canada).— Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcoPolo250 (talk • contribs) 14:32 (UTC) 7 October 2015

Please consider reading WP:BOOMERANG before continuing to personally attack your fellow users at this noticeboard. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

This is his second request at ANI over this template. In the original, he used a post by a banned user (Mdrnpndr) from the talk page that misused level of consensus concept and were no administrative action was taken. My response was that MarcoPolo indicated he did not care about sources which were in a embedded hidden comment ("Two, you indicate that you don't care one whit about sources with this edit summary: '...'Sources' be damned.)'") and that he has failed to join the discussion Template talk:Corus Entertainment#New structure except to comment on the thread, Template talk:Corus Entertainment#Consensus, that he swiped from Mdrnpndr in another thread used in that ANI report to say "I hate playing janitor. Spshu keeps messing things up. Ban him/her."

I have address Marco's objections in edit summary 18:20, 22 September 2015‎: "Nelvana is NOT a TV channel", changing "Cable TV/specialty channels" group name to "Cable TV divisions". He then reversed that with this edit summary: "Undid vandalism by Spshu" and today 'NELVANA. IS. NOT. A. CHANNEL."

I request a RfPP today in order to get him to join the discussion, which should have been evidently existed from my response to his previous ANI. How ever was turned down with direction to file at 3RR. Spshu (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding, Disney XD, the general matter is level of sources, a primary source. ViperSnake changed it to "Television provider VMedia stated" to resolve the issue. Further edits have disconnected this and other source, forcing me to restore a correctly source version given the severity of the sourcing problem. Marco has reversed said restoration outright with no regard for the problem. Spshu (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Ivanvector in that MarcoPolo250 should watch out for the boomerang. But Marco, what exactly do you mean by "two levels of consensus"? WP:CONLEVEL doesn't refer to anything like that. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

It was what I stated about Mdrnpndr's post. He attempt to use IP reverts as a "level of consensus" ([[Template talk:Corus Entertainment#Consensus) to halt discussion (Template talk:Corus Entertainment#New structure) and label me as the disruptive/vandalizing editor despite have sources to support the changes. Spshu (talk) 13:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Personal attack by User:Calvin999 on User:Coolmarc

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• First instance: "You've only been active for 18 months, you don't appear in the list of 10,000 most active users indicating a low contribution count and you've only worked on 3 articles for GAN." This was last 21 September, so rather stale, but nonetheless an indication of how Calvin999 views Coolmarc as a user. --Efe (talk) 20:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
• Second instance: "You are fairly inexperienced..." The bickering over Talk:Photograph (Ed Sheeran song)/GA1 is very taxing for the nominator and most probably to the reviewer. --Efe (talk) 20:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Calvin999, who has reviewed over 200 GANs and used the number of reviews as basis / gauge of how experienced a user is, is expected to have understood GAN rules. Coolmarc has reminded Calvin999 that there is a place for re-assessment if the latter has established that the article failed to meet GA criteria. By the way, the GAN review is still ongoing. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 20:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes I wonder whether the purported quality benefits of the FA/GA apparatus outweigh all the bickering that goes on around it. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Another one: "You have a lot to learn, Coolmarc." --Efe (talk) 20:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I am uninvolved with this dispute but I am familiar with the attitude of Calvin999. This person maintains an attitude of superiority over other editors. They are quite often argumentative and have no problem going out of their way to hurt others. I was forced to deal with this reviewer two or three times at the GA Help Desk where I occasionally volunteer as an uninvolved arbiter, as others brought them to my attention for their less-than-positive behavior. I even received an off-wiki email from this person, who preferred that venue to argue with me about my suggestion to them to please tone it down. Instead of heeding my advice, I recall they only wanted to justify their position. I respect the volume of work this reviewer has done; 200 reviews is terrific, but this superior attitude they maintain will only get them into more trouble. I see from this new ANI that they still have not learned to respect others. We are all only trying to do our best. Prhartcom (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Prhartcom, I don't see how I argued with you in our emails. Clearly, I'm not allowed an opinion, I'm not allowed to say anything to everyone in case of any hypersensitivity, I'm not allowed to say how I feel, but everyone else can. I am expected to just sit and take everything thrown at me. It seems like having an opinion, no matter how big or small, is seen as being argumentative or not being cooperative.  — Calvin999 20:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

You do realise that these are not personal attacks, Efe? Last time I checked, saying that someone is inexperienced (i.e. that they have not had much experienced/haven't been editing very long on Wikipedia) and saying that someone has a lot to learn weren't personal attacks. I haven't used expletives, I haven't called anyone any names, I haven't been verbally abusive. Many editors have told me that I was inexperienced and that I had a lot to learn back when I was an inexperienced editor with a low edit count and low level of contribution. I think you're taking this way too far and not adhering to what actually constitutes a personal attack.  — Calvin999 20:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Per page, "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." --Efe (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

But they aren't personal attacks... They are observations, and to some extent, fact.  — Calvin999 20:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) The user has reverted the ANI notice on the user talk page. --Efe (talk) 20:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm entitled to to remove notices from my talk page.  — Calvin999 20:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Who are we to judge people's level of experience? The fact is that his review has been helpful. --Efe (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not judging, and I never said Coolmarc's review wasn't helpful. Please show me where I said "This review is not helpful". I'd like to see it.  — Calvin999 20:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Pasting here again the definition of WP:PERSONAL which is representative of the community's view on the matter: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." --Efe (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

You can paste it as much as you like Efe. I haven't made racist or sexist or another -ist's remarks, I haven't discredited peoples affiliations or views, I haven't linked to external attacks or harassments, I haven't compared anyone to a Nazi, I haven't made any threats of legal action, vandalism, violence, or anything religious or political, and I haven't threatened to out anyone. You can look at Wikipedia:No personal attacks#What is considered to be a personal attack? to check. I haven't made any comments which fall into any of these.  — Calvin999 21:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Have you read this: "There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are never acceptable"? Apparently calling people "inexperienced" is downright personal. I don't care if other people called you one, at some point in your career here in Wikipedia. What is being scrutinized is your behavior towards a person (not just user, or account, or a bot). --Efe (talk) 21:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

What behaviour? I haven't done any of the things I listed, and I haven't said anything wholly "unacceptable." I think you're massively missing the mark of what a personal attack is. I haven't said anything personal or attacked anyone. Stating simple facts is not a personal attack.  — Calvin999 21:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Give us facts why Coolmarc is "inexperienced". --Efe (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I already have. You've posted them here yourself.  — Calvin999 21:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

And yet again with the summary "My talk page. Not yours." --Efe (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm entitled to to remove notices from my talk page. I think I am aware that this ANI is happening.  — Calvin999 20:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes you are. Efe, please stop restoring it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I think Efe has assumed bad faith by accusing me of personal attacks against Coolmarc. I haven't done any of the things listed on Wikipedia:No personal attacks#What is considered to be a personal attack? and I haven't said anything other than what is fact. I didn't mean anything maliciously, but I can't help how someone takes that. It's not a personal attack to say that an editor is inexperienced and has a lot to learn. I'm sorry, but when you have only reviewed 4 good article nominations with an edit count of less than 3,000 in 18 months and you are making comments such as saying "I haven't asked for your second opinion", then yes, that editor is inexperienced and does have a lot to learn about how Wikipedia works and what to do. I don't see how that is a personal attack. I posted a second opinion on a good article review out of goodwill (because of Coolmarc's inexperience and because the article had major MOS issues, to which Efe said his/herself that he/she needs to brush up on how to prepare an article), despite Coolmarc and Efe's treatment towards me in the past, and this is how I am thanked? By being reported for saying someone doesn't have much experience? Efe has also shown bad faith by edit warring on my talk page by restoring the ANI notice which I removed and not adhering to my wish that I do not want the notice on my talk, and then posted diffs to my reverts presumably to further show me a bad light?  — Calvin999 21:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Boris: the answer is "no."
• Efe: Calvin's remarks may be off-topic and boorish, but they do not rise to the level of personal attack that is likely to be sanctioned by an admin. "Comment on content not contributor" is excellent advice you both should follow; the very first words to your very first post to the FAC page were personal in nature; if you have something to say to another editor, use their talk page.
• Calvin: "Comment on content not contributor" is excellent advice you both should follow; the benefit of experience should be that you can quickly find and wikilink the applicable policies which support your position, not that you can claim authority by citing edit counts and years.
• Community: are you sure you really wanted to close WP:WQA -- this was WQA, not ANI, stuff, back in the day ... NE Ent 22:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you.  — Calvin999 22:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Prague astronomical clock

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Prague astronomical clock is (one of) today's Google Doodles. It attracted me to that page, so a few eyes may be needed today. 220 of ^Borg 02:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Google Doodle in Australia, New Zealand, UK (and elsewhere) that is, but not USA, as I assumed, if anyone was wondering what I was talking about.[290]. 220 of ^Borg 02:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MFD disruption

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

If you take w look at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dragons flight/test/Barack Obama, you'll see that MFD is being filled with disruptive POINTy discussions like these. Any someone speak to the nominator about not clogging up the stairs page by attacking active users doing real work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.123.151 (talk) 23:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

You again? It's a 2013 version of Barack Obama that hasn't been edited in years. Ok, I'm listing a lot at MFD but that's because I'm probably the only person making categories like Category:Userspace drafts created via the Article Wizard from October 2009 go from 3k articles to just the last two now. There's only 49k pages in that backlog to go. Can someone WP:RBI this character? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Just reverted their Keep. It's quite sad that 166.x.x.x has descended into trolling for want of anything better to do. Blackmane (talk) 08:05, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:DN-boards1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am posting here to request that someone attempt to engage with User:DN-boards1 about longevity-related articles. Here is a list of the issues:

• Creation of articles on subjects that have been determined previously by community consensus to be non-notable: Josefa Salas Mateo (previously redirected), Friedrich Wedeking (previously redirected), Antonio Urrea-Hernández (deleted until reliable sources could be found) - nothing substantial has improved on the original concerns to warrant recreation.
• Incivility: [291], [292], [293]
• Edit warring: [294], [295], [296], [297]

I nominated many of these articles for deletion, since it couldn't hurt to reestablish a community consensus on these matters (since many were, admittedly, years old) and edit warring would only make things worse, and I also attempted to discuss the matter on the user's talk page. The latter was all but ignored (another article was created shortly after my attempt to discuss the issue, which has also been deleted in the past and offers nothing new from that version.) Despite multiple attempts to explain Wikipedia's principles of notability to the user, they are either unable to unwilling to understand that it is not up to their subjective judgement. Longevity-related articles have a long history of disruptive editing, with the Arbcom case and World's Oldest People Wikiproject talk page providing some history and context. I know that the user could be blocked based off of WP:3RR and the discretionary sanctions, but I'm really hoping that someone uninvolved can come in and inspire this editor to direct this user's energies in a more positive direction, just as I am hoping that the AfDs will establish a clear consensus on some of these (re)created articles and avoid edit warring. Canadian Paul 00:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• Well, really now? I'm just gonna throw out there that you nominated Augusta Holtz - the 32nd-oldest person in history - for deletion. The person with the 32nd longest lifespan known, and you nominated them fr deletion. In addition, @Isambard Kingdom: literally patrols my contribs and butts into issues that he has no knowledge of, going as far as to call the Gerontology Research Group "not a reliable source". And Louisa Thiers is not just notable for longevity, she was the sister of Henri Capron, a relative of Adolphe Thiers, etc. She was notable for many, many, many other things. DN-boards1 (talk) 00:24, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit summaries such as "Shut the fuck up, Isambard. Seriously, you're getting annoying" are never appropriate. I've listed the page again for deletion as you've not provided anything different from the prior version that was discussed back in June 2014. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• And more forthcoming at Oldest people and List of the verified oldest people. This is typical longevity fan editing: disregard Wiki guidelines and consensus and continue adding non-notable content without sufficient reliable sources. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Because it's a double standard. Antonio Todde is notable, but Josep Armengol Jover is not? DN-boards1 (talk) 01:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Oldest people articles are now subject to discretionary sanctions so it would be helpful if an outside admin consider that remedy. This post can be also be taken to WP:AE if requested. Since Augustine Tessier is up for deletion, the editor is creating User:DN-boards1/Augustine Tessier amongst others. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment note that the editor has reverted several edits [298] [299] [300] therefore causing the template to have unsourced information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpvt (talk • contribs) 02:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest taking the template to WP:RFPP. I've started a discussion at Template talk:Oldest people where DN-boards1 has made it clear that the only source (which isn't in any of the other articles we have here) is a GRG table. And I do find the arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonio Todde further evidence of the incivility discussed above. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• This is getting ridiculous. The editor insists on adding/re-adding unsourced trivia and opinion in contravention of multiple policies/guidelines and consensus. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

This sounds like the behaviour of the user that used a series of 166.X.X.X IPs, such as the on in the collapsed digression in the range block thread above, a while back who got topic banned for persistent disruptive editing in the WOP articles. Blackmane (talk) 08:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Once again I contend that this sock puppeteer has user:Starkiller88 puppet. BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Immediate unblock needed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm online for the first time in twelve hours, and I've just noticed a talk page note from Montanabw from eight hours ago:

HI Nyttend. Do you know that you just slapped an IP Rangeblock on the WikiUSA conference? "This block has been set to expire: 09:22, October 11, 2015. The block ID is: 6357296." Don't know which blocked user is here, but so are several hundred other people.... (We do have altenate wifi access, but)

I don't understand rangeblocks and haven't made any in the longest time; none of the blocks in the first page of my block log (going back to 13 August) is anything expiring on October 11, and I don't know how to check or remove blocks by block ID. If you know what to do or how to do it, please lift this block immediately. See WP:ABK#How it works; I wonder if this is an autoblock similar to the User:Bad article creation bot situation mentioned there. Nyttend (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Extended content

Keep blocked. Maybe Jimbo should learn a bit about what it feels like to have your first amendment rights taken away without due process. 166.170.45.93 (talk) 23:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC) Ooh, edgy. Did you forget the First Amendment doesn't apply to private entities? clpo13(talk) 23:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC) This is not a request for a block review; this is a request to fix a technical problem. Nyttend (talk) 23:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC) The First Amendment can apply here, and whether or not it's a block review, it's a block that shouldn't be overturned. 166.171.121.70 (talk) 23:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC) Oh, dear. I hope you've left plenty of time to cram before your Constitutional Law final. Pruneyard arises under California's constitution, not the US Constitution (except secondarily). Good try, though, smartypants. EEng (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I am trying to clear it but am getting "Error: Block ID #6357296 not found. It may have been unblocked already.". I don't undo auto-blocks often so perhaps I have it wrong. HighInBC 23:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) The number indicates that it was an autoblock and I can't find it in Special:BlockList so it must have expired. Montanabw if it's still happening if you go to Special:BlockList and type the block ID with a # before it, then tell us the user the block is targeting we can disable it. Other than that, if the blocked user tries to log in again the IP will be reblocked. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I can't find that block through the usual means. I'm told that there are admins there though, and they can fix things if needed. --Rschen7754 23:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• I've left a note for the conference chairman, Kirill Lokshin, attempting to explain the situation. Any admin who's present at the conference should be able to edit through it, if it's somehow still there; if anyone knows what to do, please do it. Thanks to Rschen, Callanecc, and HighInBC for working on the situation. Nyttend (talk) 23:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• • • • It got fixed, all. Gave the conference a pretty good laugh. Montanabw^(talk) 01:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

You just know this all started because people were doing vandalism at the conference... I bet someone realized "Hey, we are all on the same IP... <muahahahah>". HighInBC 01:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I got a good laugh out of it.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can someone block this IP?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

24.46.195.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I posted a request at AN/V but there is a backlog there. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I can do that. Two weeks (they've been doing this for quite some time with a brief interruption by a block in September).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sockpuppet creation bot?

If you look at the log for edit filter 527, you will see that somebody (or more likely, some bot) has been pumping out sockpuppet accounts for the past 24 hours. It gets in 6 at a time and then keeps trying unsuccessfully until someone (presumably) resets its IP and it does 6 more. I've blocked over 50 so far. The naming pattern is obvious. I've posted this at WP:SPI, but wanted to see if anyone here had any insights. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, NawlinWiki, I don't know where to look to see what's going on...can you provide a link to point me in the right direction? Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

[301]. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

We could set an EF to deny, as a temporary measure, more than 1, 2 or 3 account creations in a short period. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC).

Indeed with that naming pattern we can be even more robust. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC).

User:Digvijay411 biased editing

This user is biased towards pages such as Karanvir Bohra and even Surbhi Jyoti - they keep on adding trivial information which has been removed by other editors, get angry with users when they remove information from those page, and revert those edits, he/she is biased against pages such as Karan Singh Grover and gets information removed from the page by contacting editors such as User_talk:TheRedPenOfDoom or by directly doing so themselves, their biased editing ways is evident through this page [[302]]103.12.211.188 (talk) 10:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you used the wrong link; the link you posted goes to that user's entire contributions listing—but if that is what you intended to do, well, you have to give a much more specific example than that. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

ok give me sometime, I will show you specific examples soon, regards103.250.184.45 (talk) 04:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I would also suggest that you register an account because having the same user posting from different IP addresses becomes rather confusing to other users. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello it is me! Made a username, I will show you proof soon, sorry I am busy with assignments currently, regardsA-wednesday (talk) 09:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC) Hello check out this page, it is a history page of the page Karanvir Bohra, u can check how all the editors are constantly trying to remove fluff from the page, but the user digvijay continues to add information and does disruptive editing, and then I'll show you other pages. [[303]]A-wednesday (talk) and here is a specific example [[304]], there are lots of disruptive edits made by the editor on that page if this is not proof enough, let me know, funnily enough the same user ends up removing content from other pages, while continues to add fluff to this pageA-wednesday (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

IPs substituting file deletion templates

Recently, some IPs have been substituting file deletion templates and then often changing the {{imbox}} style so that the border colour is incorrect. See discussions at User talk:71.3.142.187 and User talk:71.3.142.74. User talk:71.3.137.41 has now started with the same practice. The IP addresses look similar, so they could all belong to the same person. Not sure what to do here. It is inappropriate to substitute the templates and change how they look as other users are likely to overlook the deletion templates that way.

Note that a few of the files have since been deleted, so some of the substitutions are now only visible to admins. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this, Although I'm not sure what sort of input you want given that I only put the original tag on the images concerned, and made some reverts in good faith, I don't know why anyone would want to subst them. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't just the border colour. In the case of 71.3.142.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) they were also altering the wording, either to soften the message, remove certain phrases or sentences, or to negate part of the message. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I see that one of them also changed an FFD closure rationale (now reverted by User:Kelly). --Stefan2 (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Bot bug with User:lowercase sigmabot III

Notice on the page Talk:J._Robert_Oppenheimer that when the archiver ran it erased a section of the talk page which is no longer present anywhere in the archives. Prior to run [305] and after run [306]. Section discussing mesons disappeared and is no longer in the Talk page or its archive. I assume this is due to a bug? Klaun (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

For starters, this should really have been sent to Σ first as the operator. Now that we're here: looks like the archived discussion wound up on another archive page. The archiving template contains the field |archive=Talk:J. Robert Oppenheimer/Archive %(counter)d, thus the bot technically put it in the correct location; it seems it is not designed to follow redirects. — Earwig ^talk 03:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

User:lowercase sigmabot III page says to report problems here. If that is incorrect then perhaps that instruction should be corrected as well. I just noticed the problem and reported it. Klaun (talk) 13:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, right—that's more for "oh crap, the bot's breaking everything, block it immediately!" moments than "I think the bot might have a bug". — Earwig ^talk 14:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Is it? Well, great! Next time I just won't say anything at all! Trying to figure out how to get something done on Wikipedia is about on par with navigating the Byzantine bureaucracy. Keep up the good work. Klaun (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Klaun: Okay, let me clarify. Bots are created by individual users, so they are the only ones able to fix issues related to their operation. As admins, we can block bots that are dangerously broken (e.g. if the archiving bot was blanking everything), which is why that message directs you here for malfunctioning bots, but we can't fix the bugs themselves. Hence the only thing I can do if you report it here is tell Σ (which I did), but I can't fix anything myself. Please do not be discouraged from reporting issues, as your input is valuable. — Earwig ^talk 18:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The wording is at {{Emergency-bot-shutoff}} maybe it could be tweaked. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC).

@The Earwig:Thanks for the clarification, but that is not information I'm unaware of. This bot does not even have a talk page; it is a redirect. The owner of the bot says that they don't have time to spend on wikipedia. Did you email Σ? Because he says on his user page that he doesn't read messages on Wikipedia... This seems like unsupported automated code running with no supervision. I don't have a lot of wiki experience, but I'd never let this code run in any environment I was responsible for. The author, owner, administrator of the code disclaims responsibility for it and says he won't respond to in-band feedback about it. Wouldn't it be better to seek replacement code from someone who was willing to respond to feedback? Klaun (talk) 03:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Takis Fotopoulos

A few weeks ago, two editors were topic-banned from this article and all articles related to Inclusive Democracy. Since then, new editors have popped up that, like the now-topic-banned editors, resist any attempt to reduce the huge linkfarm in this article to even minor works/interviews/whatever of this person. The arguments are familiar ("undoing vandalism", "improving the article", this is done in other articles, too, etc). I just started editing there because of the huge COI/POV/promotional issues and, frankly, this is not even a subject that I am interested in. I'm worn out by the constant lack of AGF and the POV pushing and am removing this and related articles from my watchlist. Perhaps somebody else has more stamina than me. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 16:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Would WP:SPI be appropriate? If it's clear, then bans are in order. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@Randykitty:, it would probably help others a lot if you indicated somewhere all the articles which count as related which you are removing from your watchlist, so that others can at least know what they are. John Carter (talk) 20:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't think of that: apart from the Fotopoulos article, it's Inclusive Democracy and Democracy & Nature. There may be other articles in this walled garden, but I think these are the most problematic ones. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 21:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

my page is being maliciously edited

I would like to know how I can prevent anonymous users from changing correct information on my page and putting negative submissions in its place. This has been happening frequently and is not good for business. The last edit was Oct. 8th 2015 to the Killa Tay at wikipedia page. I can provide the proper info once again but everytime I do someone with a personal hats towards me goes on the page and replaces it with false and embarassing info. I am the real Killa Tay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:8088:F7D7:0:2F:BE7D:D701 (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Would you be willing to contact our volunteer response team? (We do not take the word of an IP editor as far as identity goes.) —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Which article? Guy (Help!) 22:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The page in question is presumably Killa Tay, which has been recently edited by unregistered editors and by registered editors (and has been nominated for deletion as not notable). My advice would be, first, register an account, and, second, if you think that unsourced or malicious information is being added, you can report it to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, I spotted it. There are a couple of linked articles that belong in the bit bucket, of which that is one IMO. Guy (Help!) 23:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Please see information at WP:BIOSELF. NE Ent 23:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Possible legal threat

Is this a legal threat? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't cross the line in my opinion, as it requires assuming facts not in evidence. I would hate to see such a lawsuit, too. ―Mandruss ☎

I think if you look at the comment in context, Mandruss, things are a little murkier. The account making that comment is almost certainly a shill for Atlantic International University, which gives the comment a whole, "would be a shame if something happened to this nice little website of yours", sort of vibe. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I read it the same way Someguy did(It would be a shame...) I think it is meant to have a chilling effect and adversely effects our neutral point of view. HighInBC 00:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't doubt the motive, I'm just unclear as to how explicit a threat has to be. If we consider context, I sit corrected. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Given the link provided by Mandruss DrFleischman and this post it is clear this person is trying to use the law as a tool of intimidation to adversely effect our neutral point of view. I have blocked for legal threats on that basis.

If they agree not to argue content disputes with legal "warnings" I will gladly consider the block to be no longer preventative and reverse it. I am happy for a review of this block an will abide by whatever consensus decides. HighInBC 00:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

For clarity, I think you meant the link provided by Dr. Fleischman. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I looked at the wrong sig. HighInBC 00:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• Good block Both diffs (the signature on the second) meet WP:NLT. Miniapolis 23:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Unacceptable warning by Bbb23

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Yeah I know most will find this minor, but it made me so furious I had to walk around the block to calm down. So I thought it best to flesh it out here so I understand what the heck happened. Here is the warning given. My point of view is we were dealing with a new disruptive editor. Not a content dispute. I say we because I was not the first to revert this guy, nor was this the only place he was disruptive. First we have a discussion started on the subject. There are 4 of us but I think you'll note that against my better judgement I am the only one who really compromised their stance just so we could get some cohesion. While discussing, editor Tennisvine started changing other articles to the way he wanted it. That's not the way wiki works and he was reverted here by Wolbo with an explanation. This brought it to my attention and he started reverting it again, along with a new article Helen Wills. You'll note that Wolbo also reverted this editor at the Helen Wills page because there is no consensus yet at the Tennis Project about how we will handle it. I even started a topic at the Helen Wills talk page telling this new editor that what added was fine but that he can't remove other editor's work in the process. I even did his work for him and added back in his references with disrupting the original table. But that wasn't good enough and he went right back to his way even though we were still discussing things at tennis Project. Both I and Wolbo reverted him again, Wolbo being the last one to do a revert of his bracketed names while under discussion.

You know I try and handle a lot of vandalism at tennis related articles and I try and give new editors lots of reasons and warnings before bringing it to administrator's attention. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. This time it didn't. But I wasn't mad... he's a new editor learning the ropes. What got me mad was the warning by Bbb23. My complaint against Bbb23 is that he didn't take this whole thing into context before giving me a warning. This is a disruptive new editor that has been told multiple times by multiple editors that what he is doing is wrong. And I get a warning! By the way since the warning this editor has changed Helen Wills again... so it's going to continue from one article to the next. It's not like I wanted the guy blocked either... he's learning and just needs to be told by an administrator that what he's doing is wrong. But I am still royally PO'd at the open warning by administrator Bbb23. I think it was uncalled for and should be removed at once given the situation. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, Fyunck was edit warring on List of French Open women's singles champions. Here are some values to ponder:
{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}: 6,827,811
{{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}}: 120,533
{{NUMBEROFADMINS}}: 859
and there are 140.31781140861 users per administrator. What this means, in practice, is one should never expect an administrator to take things into "context." You should expect to resolve content issues without administrators if at all possible and certainly without edit warring; if there are multiple editors who agree with you then one of them should revert someone going against consensus. If you must, as a last resort, involve administrators they will, as a rule, do the right thing if you frame it properly for them; use short sentences, small words, and prefer diffs over rhetoric. NE Ent 20:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

And there were multiple editors reverting him (on multiple articles). I don't understand this at all. I'd like to hear from several administrators in telling me exactly what they would have done differently because this is the type of thing that drives long-term editors away. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The interesting thing here is that Fyunck(click) is actually the one being disruptive - by ignoring guidline MOS:BIO Section 2.1.1 Maiden names and changing females players names to their married names for events prior to their marriage, because he feels that it's just easier that way, and ignoring the fact that it's actually historically inaccurate, providing misinformation to the reader and going against guidelines. As much as I may feel I'm right in this matter, I must concede the fact that I broke rules here and received a warning because of it. I am now aware of the edit-warring/revert rule and won't let it happen again. Fyunck(click) likes to say at every opportunity how experienced he is and how new I am - so I guess that means he was fully aware of the rules he violated, and chose to do so anyway. I have no problem with the ruling by Bbb23. As for solving this dispute through an outside party - that would be greatly welcomed. For my side of things , here is what I wrote at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring:

The fact that I am new to Wikipedia has no bearing on this matter, and it's this cavalier attitude that User:Fyunck(click) has shown here, that has led to this dispute. I started the conversation at Tennis Project Guidelines to try and resolve an issue I had found. When a female player has played under her maiden name (prior to being married) and then , once married, plays under her married name, how do we as editors help the reader connect the dots between these two names (I made clear I was talking about instances - charts, tables, tournament edition pages, etc. - outside of the players bio article)? I cited examples ( I will use the example of Sylvia Lance here as I did there) and began the discussion proposing that for players that had achieved success under their maiden name - Sylvia Lance -, if they married and changed to using only their married name - Sylvia Harper - we could list them in this format - First name (maiden name) married name - so it would be Sylvia (Lance) Harper. This way it would indicate to the reader that Sylvia Lance also played as Sylvia Harper. This format for a married woman's name is not without precedent and is used here MOS:BIO Section 2.1.1 Maiden names - Specifically this line - An alternative form, Lucy (Payne) Washington, is also widely accepted. I fully realize this section is addressing Biographies, but feel that it still shows there is precedence for this format. Unfortunately, my proposal was mostly ignored and the conversation devolved into a discussion about just applying a commonly used name to all instances where a player's name appears. For example Sylvia Lance would be changed to Sylvia Harper for events that occurred prior to her marriage. Even as a "newbie" as User:Fyunck(click) so disdainfully refers to me, I knew that listing a woman by her married name for events that occurred before she was married was historically inaccurate and only doing the reader a disservice by providing misinformation. Another editor that was participating in the discussion pointed out that " we should use the name of the player as she was known at the time; anything else would be anachronistic." citing MOS:BIO 2.1.2 Changed names - specifically the line "If a person is named in an article in which they are not the subject, they should be referred to by the name they were using at the time of the mention rather than a name they may have used before or after the mention." I tried to bring the conversation back around to - How do we solves this problem of connecting these players maiden names and married names while still following the aforementioned guidelines? But, User:Fyunck(click) kept insisting that we use a commonly used name and apply it in all instances even if it's historically inaccurate. The conversation kept getting dragged in this circle and was clearly getting nowhere. I gave up and went back to doing a variety of edits that included fixing instances where incorrect names were listed in tables Helen Wills(maiden name) listed as Helen Wills Moody(married name) in events prior to her marriage, Kitty McKane(maiden name) listed as Kitty Godfree(married name) in events prior to her marriage. I did not attempt use the format for names I had been suggesting in the Project Guidelines discussion since no consensus had been formed on that topic. User:Fyunck(click) began reverting my edits even though I was continually pointing to MOS:BIO 2.1.2 Changed names as evidence that using the historically correct name is preferred - and that brought us to here. I'm really not sure what else to do when another editor is ignoring these guidelines and just aggressively reverting edits because they think it's "easier" even if inaccurate. I particularly didn't like being threatened by User talk:Fyunck(click). This was posted on his talk page in response to the edit warning I was required to put there - Boy this one is truly laughable... beware of a boomerang on this one. It's a threat like this combined with the cavalier attitude - "We have tried to explain to this newbie how things work at wikipedia" that make me think - Do I really want to spend my time helping here if this is how it's going to be? I simply want to volunteer my time and contribute to making these pages easy to use by making them consistent , clear, and most importantly, accurate. What I don't want, is to be bullied by editors who seem to think they can stake out some pages as their own little fiefdom. Thank You. Tennisvine (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't read that; it's way too long; please WP:BECONCISE. I'm afraid it's certainly not interesting -- it's a run of the mill dispute. SPlease just return to the appropriate article / project pages and keep talking until you all agree, or see WP:Dispute Resolution, which should not include anything with "administrator" in the title. NE Ent 21:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, Fyunck(click) did not notify me on my talk page that he had begun a discussion here involving me, even though it's quite clear that it's required. I extended him that courtesy when I posted to the edit warring page and would have appreciated the same in return. Tennisvine (talk) 21:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, How's this - Fyunck(click) keeps ignoring the guideline MOS:BIO Section 2.1.1 Maiden names and replacing women's maiden names with their married names for events prior to the marriage. Here are examples: # [307], # [308], # [309]. I had tried to discuss this with him here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines but after a long back and forth and even a second editor also pointing him to that guideline, the conversation just kept going in circles. Thank You Tennisvine (talk) 21:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

As, NE Ent says, this is a matter for dispute resolution among editors who work on tennis-related articles. I'd return to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines#Maiden names, determine what the consensus among editors is and go with that as a guideline. I'm sorry that you found the discussion going in circles, Tennisvine, but WP:ANI is for conduct disputes, not ones over content differences. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, Fyunck, but I don't see how a warning for edit warring by one of the admins who live on AN3 is unacceptable. Edit warring is edit warring even if you're right. Context may be difficult to judge sometimes, and admins particularly on AN3 have a hell of a time figuring it out: it's not a fun job and filing a report is a bitch if context matters, but that's what it is. Many of us have been warned at some time or other, it's not something to get all ANI about. Drmies (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

  But @Liz: and @Drmies:. ANI wasn't my first choice... I asked Bbb23 where I should dispute his warning and he said right here. I've been warned before and taken it in stride. This one I can't fathom what else I could do and so could likely do it again unknowingly. I think you might be missing the point of this An/i. How do you handle the situation? We are at the Maiden names discussion. While discussing, an editor in the discussion changes an article to his way of thinking. An editor changes it back saying it's being discussed. He changes it again and different editor changes it back saying it's being discussed. He changes it back again AND moves on to a second article and changes it to his way. This second article also gets changed back by two different editors saying it's being discussed. Do you just sit there quietly while more and more articles are changed, all while under discussion? If you were one of the ones who reverted it back to pre-discussion values, how would you feel about being blocked for it? Something seems broken here to me. I certainly thought about reporting him to an admin earlier but he was new. Was I being too nice? That's what this Ani is about. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't believe it was justified to give Fyunck(click) a warning over this and a distinction could and should have been made between the context of his reverts and the edits made by Tennisvine but I do agree with Drmies that in the end it's not that big a deal. Just shrug it off and move on.--Wolbo (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• Fyunck, I looked a bit more. I still agree that a warning for both is acceptable. I also agree that if anyone is editing "more" against consensus it's your opponent. But I saw only one revert by someone else in that Open article, and none in the Wills article--had there been more, by other editors, your case would have been much stronger. I suppose that's unfortunate for you and I know how it feels; I've been there before. But the general point, about reverting while discussion is going on, there's no easy answer there; it goes to the heart of the BRD cycle which is notoriously fraught with difficulty, since the B is by definition an edit against previous consensus, whether that's an explicit consensus or not. This is always going to be difficult. As a sidenote, I also think that Tennisvine sounds very combative. For a new editor, they also seem to have jumped in at the deep end, showing great technical skill, so I wouldn't be too worried about being too patient with them. Drmies (talk) 23:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• In case you didn't see below. Wolbo reverted the first bit here and then it was changed to it present unauthorized form here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, did not realize Bbb23 had referred the editors here [310]. NE Ent 23:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• I wasn't going to comment here because I figured anything I might say would only upset Fyunck(click) more than they already are. However, first, I referred only one editor here, not more than one, and I did so because Fyunck(click) asked how they could "contest" my warning. To review an administrator's sanction, even if it's relatively minor, this is normally the place to go. As can be seen by Fyunck(click)'s original post here, they wanted the warning removed. Obviously, that isn't going to happen unless I retract it or there is a consensus that the warning was outside of my discretion. Second, good old Drmies. Yup, Tennisvine is more combative. That was obvious from just AN3 alone and the screed they posted there (and then copied here), but it was also obvious from the discussions elsewhere. Nor, just as you (Drmies) said, did I think they were new or that Fyunck(click) should treat them any differently from any other user. See: I did take into account context. However, none of that justified the edit-warring. It was disruptive to the article, which was my main concern when I issued the warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit!. This makes no sense. You can't appeal a warning, especially the warning "if you edit war you may be blocked." It's not an "admin sanction," even a nobody can issue a edit warring warning and it can't be meaningfully retracted or overturned; nothing anyone does here would be binding on all 859 administrators. Furthermore the idea that one editor in a kerfuffle can be referred to ANI without them mentioning and dragging in other editors is clearly not supported by the nine hundred and one archive pages of ANI; the warning was fine; inappropriately referring a distraught editor to WP:CESSPIT is a bush league move. NE Ent 01:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely false. If an administrator at an administrative noticeboard issues a warning that if an editor reverts an article they will be blocked, that is a sanction. It is not the same as a warning from an non-admin because they can only back up their threat by seeking administrative action, whereas I can block. There are times in other forums where I issue warnings as an ordinary editor, but not at AN3.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• The warning is absolutely acceptable. You could equally have been blocked for 48 hours with talk page access removed, before you even had a chance to edit the 3RR board and defend yourself - especially if you currently possess a clean block log. zzz (talk) 01:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

  I'm guessing a sarcastic remark from a disgruntled employee here? Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

  Good guess. I was just the first administrator to block this user who has since been blocked three more times for edit-warring. As an aside, their talk page access was never revoked.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

  So you are doubling down on blocking someone without giving them a chance to defend themselves. (Talk page access was revoked, by the way. Inexplicably. And, the block rationale "per WP:GS/SCW" was invalid anyhow since I hadn't been given sanctions notification.) zzz (talk) 04:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

  You linked to your own block log in your first post here. I did not revoke your Talk page access; nor did the other administrators after me. What are you looking at? "account creation blocked"? Is that what you think that phrase means? If so, it doesn't. Anyway, I'm done here. You had no business even posting in this thread. You just wanted to dredge up a grudge at the expense of Fyunck(click), who, at least, is sincere.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

  Sure, just keep on slagging me off. Nice. And I just imagined my talk page being blocked. Right - of course. zzz (talk) 05:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

  (non-involved editor) @Signedzzz: Can we please stop with the torches and pitchforks? I'm looking at your block log right now and do not see the words "cannot edit own talk page" anywhere. Amaury (talk) 05:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

  Your guess is as good as mine. I emailed ARBCOM at the time about the block, since my TP access was revoked. (They replied a few weeks later and informed me that they don't deal with small blocks, which I didn't know at the time). The reason I emailed ARBCOM was because the block notice told me to, if I wanted to appeal the block. zzz (talk) 05:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

  Here is the diff: "Your ability to edit this talk page has also been revoked. If you would like to be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-appeals-enlists.wikimedia.org. Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2014" zzz (talk) 05:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

  @Signedzzz: Bbb23 just used the wrong block template. He did not actually revoke talk page access, as your block log shows. But it is understandable at least that you thought it was.--Atlan (talk) 08:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

  Amaury, my theory has been, Bbb23 knew perfectly well that it was a terrible block, so he wanted to shut me up in advance. Obviously, that impression has just now been reinforced by his behaviour here, casting aspersions about my honesty, and denying the block he had issued, etc. zzz (talk) 06:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

  If you have a grievance against Bbb23, address it separately; you are off topic in this thread. We don't get to parachute into an ANI thread and hijack it simply because we have a beef with one of the parties to the thread. If you have already tried legitimate ways to address your grievance and failed, drop the fucking stick. You're being disruptive here. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

  Here is [the 3RR "discussion". It is a diff of a single revert, followed by a few completely unsubstantiated (no diffs) and extremely offensive personal attacks, on the strength of which Bbb23 saw fit to block me, without allowing me to reply. An editor with any dignity, I suppose, would have retired at that point. Anyhow, this has been very illuminating. zzz (talk) 06:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

  One more thing, User:Mandruss, what the fuck does "If you have already tried legitimate ways to address your grievance and failed, drop the fucking stick" mean? What "legitimate ways", for instance? WP:ANI? zzz (talk) 06:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

  I'm afraid I'm not well versed in how to address grievances with admins, so I can't be of any help there. I'm 100% sure of three things: (1) such recourses exist, (2) dropping in on an unrelated ANI thread ain't one of them, and (3) it's critical to use the system the way it's designed to be used. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

  It really seems to me that you're absolutely wrong there. Past conduct of any party in any ANI thread is perfectly valid (per WP:BOOMERANG etc etc). So this would be exactly the correct place to raise this matter. Which is purely academic, because I have raised it. zzz (talk) 06:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

  No, BOOMERANG applies to the person bringing the complaint, in this case Fyunck(click). It has nothing to do with what you're doing. As far as I can tell, your grievance has nothing to do with the complaint being discussed here, aside from Bbb23's involvement in both. Are we to allow anyone who happens to see this to resurrect any past unrelated grievance against Bbb23 or Fyunck(click) in this thread? If so, how can we be expected to reach a resolution of the original complaint? It just can't work. That's why we have to keep unrelated things separate. This is intuitively obvious to me, but if you still can't see it, I really have no more to contribute here and I wish you a good day. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

  As you said, you're not well-versed, and no, I don't see what you're suggesting I'm doing wrong. I know I'm glad I hung around long enough to prove that I'm not a liar, as User:Bbb23 was trying to insinuate a little while ago, in this thread. zzz (talk) 07:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

  Sorry, User:Mandruss, the idea that I'm interrupting the very important business of someone whining about a "warning" is ludicrous. zzz (talk) 07:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Look, I'm not stupid in what to expect here, but I've seen the strangest things get removed that happened a year before. It usually depends on how many will fight for you and there I'm probably in the billabong. But I've let things slide in the past when I probably should have stood up for myself, and to see not only a warning but "I was tempted to block both" written down has me angry and at a loss as to why it was even remotely considered. I still feel it was and still is ongoing disruption on the part of the other editor and I was right to try and keep it at the talk page discussion. Some above wrote they didn't see the changes/reverts made at Helen Wills. Wolbo reverted the first bit here and then it was changed to it present unauthorized form here. Don't fault Bbb23 for sending me here, if he hadn't responded it would have been here anyway. I just didn't know if he wanted to discuss it on his page or somewhere other than Ani. Where to go on these things is elusive to me. But bringing it here was my doing, no one else's. I knew, that things might even get worse for me here... in 10 years of editing I've seen strange things. But when I have no idea now what to do with situations such as this... do I send it to admins at the drop of a pin (with that 94/1 ratio I was told of at the beginning of this), do I keep trying to explain protocol to seemingly new editors, do I let articles go to hell and say it's not my problem,... this is what I sit here thinking about now. I know I'm not an administrator, but I do often try to make your jobs easier... so this one hurt. No question about it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

But it's looking quite plain that nothing will be done, so go ahead and close this out. At least I have it on record here that I don't understand the situation in the slightest. Thanks to any who tried to see my side of things. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

editor with a long-term history of spamming links to their employer

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Mszajewski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Background: In my role as a wikipedian I've been asked to participate in Wikipedia:GLAM/National_Digital_Forum, a real-world meet up and discussion. During the preparation for that one of the other participants produced this paper as evidence that spamming links into wikipedia is acceptable providing that the links are to archival holdings, even if the editor spamming the links is an employee of the archive. I have a day job in an area not dissimilar to User:Mszajewski, I invite feedback on my COIs or linkspamming issues in my own editing.

User:Mszajewski appears to be an employee of the Ball State University archives and almost all their edits appear to involve adding links from wikipedia to their employers' website. When their employer updated their website they don't appear to have updated the spammed links that broke. I've not reviewed every edit but the only unrelated edits I can find are the creation of Northwestern University Archives which appears to be a previous employer. I've found no evidence a conflict of interest declaration. Evidence of the promotional intent (as opposed to building the encyclopaedia based on sources the editor has at hand) can be found: In this position, he develops and promotes digital collections, manages digitization projects, and oversees [...] / [T]his case study will discuss the use of Wikipedia to promote access to and advance visibility of individual digitized archival assets. My understanding is that this stands in contradiction to both Wikipedia:Spam#External_link_spamming, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure (this last is too recent to cover the edits in question). Stuartyeates (talk) 19:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Although the links may technically be "spam", they are not commercial, and provide a useful pointer to the reader. I would say that WP:IAR applies here. The links should stay, and no action should be taken against Mszajewski. BMK (talk) 19:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• Hmm true, but it depends. I'm no expert (ha!) but in the case of [John_Stafford_Smith]], for instance, one may well ask what the link adds to the four that are already there. We should have the best link for the available information if there are duplicates; I do not know which of these has more better information. So in principle I agree with both sides, and think that this is a matter best left for individual article discussion. If, on the other hand, stuff gets out of hand, then maybe action should be taken. I have, I think, hit rollback on such edits--I remember now, it was some soccer database website thingy, where it clearly got out of hand, with hundreds of adds to a low-quality place supplying information that duplicated that of more established sites. So one question is whether the Ball State site is a mirror of something, or whether they actually bring something new to the table, from their own archive for instance. Drmies (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• I agree, but hard to determine without a close examination of the archive itself. BMK (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• In generally archival holdings are unique (as opposed to library holdings which are not). For example, many archives hold letters from famous / notable people (letters are widely distributed because they're famous for their author but their recipient determines their fate), thus many archives have a unique letter by Thomas Jefferson, but the Thomas Jefferson doesn't list any of them at all. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• Again, you're both right. So an examination of the archive by someone who knows the subject should reveal whether the content is helpful and all that. If the archive is minimal (following Stuart's example) the link should be removed; in addition, if they're blind additions of every "minimal" thing in an archive's holding it's certainly spamming. I dislike extensive EL sections more than most editors, but if they contribute to knowledge then I'm at peace with them. Drmies (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oh, for heaven's sake. A note on the guy's talk page (BTW, he hasn't edited in almost two years anyway) saying, "Hey, if you want to resume this kind of thing let's talk first about selecting 'high-value links'" would have made much more sense than opening a thread here. Really, this is an incident? EEng (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC) Amusing sidelights include the linked paper reporting increases of "1,121.84%" and "610.31%" in this or that traffic measure. Personally I'm far more concerned about the statistical incompetence than the so-called spamming.
  • You have a point, haha--yes. Sorry, I was looking more at the general topic than at the particulars of this incident, which I agree as an incident isn't very urgent. Drmies (talk) 23:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
    • As explained in the background above, I'm on a stage and likely to be asked about this in ~48 hours, which is why I thought it urgent. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The quick answer to your dilemma is that the statement "spamming links into wikipedia is acceptable providing that the links are to archival holdings" is incorrect. The correct test is "spamming links into wikipedia is acceptable providing that the links aren't actually spam, and sometimes it's unclear whether a particular link really counts as high-value, but we don't make a fuss about good-faith editors who might be overzealous in adding links to an obviously valuable archive, even if it's part of a somewhat ill-conceived but essentially harmless small-scale experiment re increasing the visibility of that archive". EEng (talk) 23:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah, something like that; thanks EEng. Stuart, I should have read your italicized paragraph more closely. I'm looking at that paper right now. It has a lot of words and some pictures and I suppose it counts toward tenure. And what you call "spamming" they call "linking assets"; I admire their word choice. An expanded version of the paper could address community reception of linking assets in digital library holdings to Wikipedia articles. I have no opinion on your editing, or your linking assets. I do think that the paper, and your thread here, indicate that Wikipedia can serve many purposes, not all of them legitimate. I have no reason yet to think that in this case they're not legitimate, but I do wish that at some point last year someone had asked them what they were doing (or they had taken the initiative); they could have made a cogent argument for adding the links. Without such discussion, it is easy to suspect linkspamming. Drmies (talk) 23:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Three-dimensional topological phase diagram of who does what

If we don't watch it we'll be dragging Wikipedians in residence here soon. Of course, given this three-dimensional topological phase diagram of who does what, it's no wonder there's confusion now and then. EEng (talk) 00:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• That was interesting. It confirmed what we could have guessed, but it's good to see that published. We should do a follow-up, to study how many additional archive links we got after the publication of that article; let's not tell librarians like DGG and LadyofShalott. Anyway, to get back to your original question, this editor really should have declared their COI somewhere--they clearly do have a COI and it behooves them to acknowledge that. The section "Why the Hague Sheet Music Collection?" gives something of an argument for inclusion, but for our purposes I'd expect more--if the individual links are ever questioned. Stuart, I don't know if this is the kind of response you were looking for, but even if it wasn't I thank you for bringing this to our attention. Drmies (talk) 00:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll have a more elaborate comment tomorrow, but , briefly, The rule is the same as all other links: ELs to key resources that guide the reader to important information are justified This includes an EL for a notable person the te university archives that holds the major part of his collections. (or for a famous person, to significant parts.) This does not include links to scattered items. One link from an article on a famous book to the location of the manuscript is justifed. Links from an article on a famous book to all special collections having signed copies are not (there is one exception: a list of libraries holding copies of the Gutenberg Bible. Links from a sheet music collection from the bios of all performers and composers who wrote or performed an item in the collection are not. A single link from the article on an individual composition to where the manuscript is located is justified. Thereis no special exemption for archives. I shall examine every link added by that project. I'll consult as needed, and report the results. I'll try to do as much of this a possibletomorrow;.

Even when the links are justified, large scale adding of links without prior discussion is not a good idea. People have been blocked for doing this. Again, it's nota psecial rule--large scale additions of anything are unwise without prior discussion. Being bold is not the same think as being reckless. Leaving oneself open ato accusations of COI is not a wise way to work here--it can lead to the remove of otherwise good material, which would have ben kept if added slowly and properly. And as always, no one admin or editor or anyone vcan give permission--only the consensus of the community gives permission, and consensus can change. The community has historically been very unhappy when ththey think the 1encycopedia is being systematically abused.

It was unimaginambly imperceptive to write the article saying it was done to raise the visibility of the collection. That is not a good motive for doing anythijng. We do not do PR for even the most worth objects. The only reason for adding anything here is to add information of use to the readers (or, in some cases, the editors). If , a a side matter, adding good material here improves the visibility of the editor, or their organization ther'snothing wrong with that. But using it as the purpose is unwelcome. Even if it's in the back of someones mind, it should say there. DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

"Unimaginably imperceptive"? Oh, please. You're a librarian‍—‌surely you can imagine an inexperienced editor who, unfamiliar with WP:EL, mistakes EL sections as appropriate for a kind of external bibliography. Not everyone's been around the block a million times like we hoary old hands. EEng (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, if you prefer, "it showed a lack of understanding of WP to write " ... As a librarian, I would hope for a better understandingat least iwthing our profession. DGG ( talk ) 18:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, "lack of understanding" really is better, and it transforms this from an "incident" into just someone who just misunderstood (and I find that very, very few people -- including librarians -- who don't edit WP regularly have more than the barest idea of how it works). So we're back to the note on the guy's talk page, "Hey, if you want to resume this kind of thing let's talk first about selecting 'high-value links'", and that's it. I'm glad you're reviewing what's been done to date, and let's close this now. EEng (talk) 20:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attacks by JMWt on Talk:Honey Bucket

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

For making a comment about an highlighted potential WP:COI (involving government funding of an organization some editors who might have canvassed on its forum seem to belong to), I was called "ignorant" and then, after requesting not to be called such terms, I was immediately called the same again.

Please, request that this editor stop name-calling in this way.

LjL (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

LjL made a claim about another user which was false and ignorant. JMWt (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mark Marathon

This case was first taken to ArbCom, where the overwhelming consensus was that it should have been first posted at ANI. Therefore here it is:

Initiated by SBHarris at 04:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Sbharris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Mark Marathon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

1[311] 2 [312]

Statement by Sbharris

I am user:Sbharris, on WP since 2005. Late last year I got into an edit dispute with user:Mark Marathon which turned immediately nasty. Not only did he erase my warning on his talk about edit warring, he came to my talk page to continue the debate and add an inappropriate template. Long after I had decided to WP:DROPTHESTICK, 2.5 months later he came back to my talk page to continue a demand for apologies, despite being factually wrong. See [313] This kind of aggression does not work on me.

I find this user has been editing since 2011, so is not a newb. He has in fact been blocked 6 times by 6 different admins, starting immediately in May 2011 and continuing to yesterday Oct 3, 2015, for various kinds of edit-warring. [314] Here is the last block—a war over a comma in a lede sentence: [315]

This user’s TALK page is a WP:battleground, and would be even more so, if he didn’t remove the many past complaints and warnings there [316], including mine. My own attempt to restore my own complaint to his TALK page was yesterday reverted by the blocking admin user:Bbb23, with the comment that I don’t get to edit other people’s TALK pages. Fair enough, but where then goes the full record of this kind of thing? I am talking about a pervasive, longstanding problem with no evidence that despite repeated warnings and blocks, the editor learns anything. See WP:ICANTHEARYOU.

Rather than go to Bbb23’s talk page to complain about another editor (which would seem to violate WP:NPA), and having massively failed (along with many others) to mediate with Mark Marathon himself (so much for WP:Dispute resolution), I have no alternative but to come here. I ask that somebody block Mark Marathon to avoid further such battles. Which, from the record, are completely inevitable. If nobody wishes to unblock, it will turn into a community ban (here is your chance, user:Anthonyhcole). If banned, if Mark Marathon wishes to return to WP under another name in 6 months per WP:STANDARDOFFER and behave himself, I won’t object. I believe in redemption. But I've personally had it.

Other “ordinary” editors who have tangled with Mark Marathon may wish to comment. A partial list (20 people) follows so that they are auto-notified. You don’t want to see a full list. I am not including the many warning notices from administrators, or the administrators themselves. I would like to include admin user:Anthonyhcole who seems to think that Mark Marathon has gotten a raw deal in the past [317], and should comment in this dispute.

User:AussieLegend, User:RTG, User:Afterwriting, User:Djapa84, User:Dougg,User:Varlaam,User:Mike18xx,User:Thomas.W,User:Barek User:Ronz,User:Tortie_tude,User:ImperfectlyInformed,User:Jusdafax,User:Shiftchange,User:Nomoskedasticity,User:Binksternet User:Gabby_Merger,User:Montanabw,User:Rstafursky

And of course you can add me to the list. SBHarris 04:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by User:Müdigkeit

I haven't seen a single link or reasoning why this should be handled by arbitration and not at WP:ANI. Such cases should be handled there. If they cannot be solved there, then they may come back.--Müdigkeit (talk) 07:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Hasteur

Simply a procedural note that it is typically the procedure that when a user removes a expired block or warning from their page they've acknowledged that they received the message. We don't permanently brand editors with scarlet letters for previous infractions. It is the responsibility of the editor bringing the complaint to research, determine, and present the diff backed narrative showing how a editor has a pattern of misbehavior. The editor's log page can help guide this research, but we do not depend entirely on the editor's talk page to help us understand their sanction/warning history. The only exception to the removal clause (as far as I know) is active sanctions may not be removed from the user's talk page.

Should this case be accepted, I do not wish to be included in any case updates. Hasteur (talk) 13:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Montanabw

Seeing as how I was pinged (albeit the ping didn't work quite right, I got here via other notification), I'll just note my own experience. The full block of Mark Marathon was in part a WP:BOOMERANG that occurred when he filed at ANI on me here. On his talk page, the discussion targeted myself, RexxS, Wehwalt, Mark Arsten and DangerousPanda is more or less complete here. His generally hostile tone in edit summaries in that period is here. and talk page discussion links here. After his block in March 2014, he turned around and did the same thing again in December 2014 in a related article, straight to the bullying and the threats: [318]. And, I noticed today he was making similar pointy tags with snotty comments on yet another article earlier this summer. He also recently picked up the stick again on the same article. Further examples of tone include [319]. I don't necessarily think this is a case for ArbCom, ANI could probably review the pattern and act, but maybe if the other users mentioned above all have had similar experiences of pointy edits followed by hostility and threats, then maybe the overall pattern is something to consider. I'm not an Arb, it's why you all get the shiny badge. Montanabw^(talk) 21:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

I think this belongs at WP:ANI, at least in the first instance. It does not take much digging to find that Mark Marathon is given to rhetorical exuberance, overstating trivial disagreements, grudge-bearing and the like. I think we can probably handle that sort of garden-variety misconduct. Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 22:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Afterwriting

Apart from the frequent battleground problems mentioned by other editors I believe that there are also ownership and competence issues with this editor as my own unpleasant and very bizarre recent conflict with him at Waltzing Matilda indicates. I had made a number of mostly straightforward style and phrasing edits to the article which were all reverted by him with the claim that they weren't "Australian English". Apart from one innocent mistake, when I didn't realise that a place name was that of a property instead of a town, all of my edits were, in fact, consistent with both the MoS and conventional Australian English. He then made a number of comments on the article talk page about "my" editing "mistakes" which were nearly all about problems with the previous version of the article which he had reverted back to. In other words, I had actually corrected most of the problems he was complaining about but he had restored them. Even after I pointed this out to him with diffs he still kept criticising my edits for the same reason and reverting all of my subsequent attempts to improve the article's style and phrasing. His behaviour has been highly hypocritical and extremely petty. Despite providing the evidence to him he never admitted to restoring the problems he was falsely blaming me for. Very, very strange. Afterwriting (talk) 14:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Kwamikagami

Kwamikagami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been mass moving pages and then editing the resulting redirect page to block non-admins from moving those pages back. See here [320] for example, where he moved a page away from the common name despite two previous failed move requests (1 and 2). Given this user's history, which includes a block this March for similar undiscussed and disruptive page moves [321] (see also the archived thread) and being desysopped for move warring, I would hope the community would take some sort of corrective action. Calidum 00:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I edited the pages because they had the wrong tag on them. Wasn't aware of the previous move requests, but that's just for one page. The others go into tedious detail about how the name of the article is incorrect. And the Japanese one is mistranslated. Easier just to use the correct name to begin with, and note the others. — kwami (talk) 00:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

"Wasn't aware of the previous move requests". Odd, considering you participated in the last one in 2011. oknazevad (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I doubt anyone remembers every move discussion they've participated in for the last four years. That being said, Kwami needs to be more careful with regards to consensus of page moves particularly in light of the warning in March. I can't recommend a ban based on one recent example though so unless there are multiple recent problems of controversial moves, I couldn't support much more than a whaling and a reminder that we don't have deadlines. Wugapodes (talk) 01:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • He moved several other pages as well, which can be seen in his contributions. I only gave that one example because it's a topic I feel editors would be more familiar with and because the two previous move requests. While he may not remember participating in a past discussion at that page, WP:RM#TR says not to move any page as "uncontroversial" if there were any past discussions about the name, which to me means an editor should make sure there were no such discussions. If Kwami were a new user with no baggage, I'd be less concerned about his actions. He's not, however, and that's why I took this issue here. Calidum 01:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Looking through them I didn't see any that were, on their face, as controversial as the example you listed, ie, none seemed to have old move requests. None are clearly outside policy—just imprudent, but an admonition of "be more prudent" doesn't seem satisfactory, particularly in light of the March discussion. I see a ban as too much, but a warning as too little, so I will continue to refrain from a course of action until there's further discussion. Wugapodes (talk) 02:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
• Suggestion Kwami, would you consider a self-imposed restriction not to move pages at least for a while? Less drama all around. Darx9url (talk) 03:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I can do that, though I move redirects as an easy way to cover variant spellings, and I know there are people who would insist those should count as page moves. The main problem comes from the hundreds of moves I make that no-one has any problem with. I've seen discussion take three months even when no-one objects to a move. That's the main reason I just move the article -- if someone objects it can always be moved back and we save months of tedium. — kwami (talk) 04:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

If the concern is variant spellings and alternate names, I would recommend just creating the redirects as a new page. Otherwise there's too much potential for conflict and drama. And I'd also recommend double checking the article's talk page for any page move, in line with WP:BEFORE (which is about AFD, but is good guidance for any major article change, such as title changes). Saves everyone possible headaches. oknazevad (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I should check TALK. That's good advice. But as for creating a new page for every redirect, languages will sometimes have a dozen common alt names and spellings, and creating a dozen new pages for each of a dozen new language articles is a time-consuming pain in the ass. Much more efficient to create one and then move it to the others. And since there's no talk page, there's no worry about BEFORE. — kwami (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

It's really poor form to move a page without need. It creates all sorts of potential double redirect issues (are you manually fixing them, or letting a bot do the work?) and it's actually more of a pain in the ass (in my view) to do that instead of just copying and pasting the same #REDIRECT [[target page]] code over as many times as needed. Moving pages takes a lot more resources and should be avoided. I just don't see how that's a beneficial method for accomplishing your goals. oknazevad (talk) 21:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I find it highly problematic that Kwamikagami considers discussion with other editors to be "tedium", that he thinks that he should be able to decide by himself that a title is "incorrect", and that he thinks that recommendations to do things carefully are a "time consuming pain in the ass". These statements imply that this editor thinks that he is superior to the broader Wikipedia community, and ought to be exempt from its input, and from consensus. If other editors think that I have misread the meaning of these comments, please let me know. I will reconsider. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't find it tedious to have substantive discussions. But it is tedious to spend three months discussing a page move when everyone agrees it should be moved. Why should uncontroversial edits get mired in red tape? If you love bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy, good for you, but don't push it on the rest of us. And again, if I move a page and people don't like it, we can move it back. Why shouldn't BOLD apply to page moves? — kwami (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Page-move ban

Propose a page-move ban on Kwamikagami. Even after blocks and a desysopping for pagemoving, he doesn't get it and insists on having his own way. His extensive block log is making him look more and more WP:NOTHERE disruptive. I think he needs a ban on page moves, violation of which should result in a block. If he wants to prove that he is WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia, he can edit constructively (and collaboratively) rather than moving pages. Softlavender (talk) 07:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC): edited Softlavender (talk) 00:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• • Let's look at my "extensive" block log. During the past two years I was blocked once in error; I was blocked once to catch my attention to something or other, not actually to be blocked; and just recently I was blocked for a spurious rational that everyone commenting opposed, and where the blocking admin didn't respond to people's objections. — kwami (talk) 04:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support, as proposer. Softlavender (talk) 07:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support, his explanation for editing the redirect doesnt fly with me. Its obviously a blocking attempt to prevent a reversion. Were Kwami a less experienced user this might have been reasonable. Kwami however knows exactly what they are doing when they move pages. Thats why they have been sanctioned for it previously.Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, I've had my share of disagreements with Kwami, but anything that is based on WP:NOTHERE in relation to his contributions is not something that one should get behind. —SpacemanSpiff 13:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The proposal is based on his continuously disruptive page moves (the complaint of the filer and others), which have already warranted a desysop and a block. There needs to be some further action taken; it seems a page-move ban would be a workable solution. He can always file a WP:RM if he desires a move. Softlavender (talk) 13:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support. In addition to the problems mentioned above, there is also this episode of move warring described at Talk:Tagalog_language#Move_wars, where Kwami twice moved a page in spite of a move request to the contrary just days before. Quite frankly, he cannot be trusted with the ability to move pages. Calidum 18:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Softlavender, you are misrepresenting the situation. I was not desysopped for pagemoving. I was desysopped, or at least deserved to be desysopped, in the words of one admin, because I did not take a complaint seriously. The issue at hand was a move request (by someone else, on a page I had not edited) that resulted in a consensus to move. The RfM was closed as 'move', and the closing admin moved the page. One person disliked it and reverted. People complained, and as the consensus was clearly for 'move' with the reverter alone in opposition, I moved the page back. But in doing so I violated a technicality: I was only able to restore the page to its consensus location because I was an admin, though I didn't know that at the time. (There's no warning that a move you are about to make can only be made because you're an admin.) Thus I was technically guilty of wheel-warring -- though, I should add, the page was still at the consensus location where I moved it a year later and probably is still there today. The person who reverted the consensus move complained. I responded, but then didn't keep the discussion under watch because I thought it was too trivial to be an actionable issue. After all, a single move, one that the community and a RfM agreed on, is hardly a disruptive action. When I expressed shock a couple months later at being desysopped over a complaint that I had forgotten about, the admin said that I deserved to be desysopped because I hadn't taken it seriously. I find that ludicrous, but regardless, my enforcing a closed consensus as an admin is hardly comparable to moving a bunch of pages that 99% of the time no-one objects to. — kwami (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - A complete ban on page moves is too much. Although I too think it is better to just create a new page and copy/paste the redirect code, page moving is just his technique for redirecting alternate names. If you don't agree with it then have a policy or guideline written. Otherwise this would just hinder a productive editor. And as Kwamikagami has said above, "if [he] move[s] a page and people don't like it, we can move it back." ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 20:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course, it makes it much harder for regular users to move the page back after he edits the resulting redirect, as was the case here. Calidum 20:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

So why not just ask an admin to help, or go to ANI? Since it's reversing a BOLD move, there's no need to go through RfM. Simply revert and if I really feel it should be moved, I can start the RfM. If I move a hundred pages and one is objected to and reverted, then we've saved a *huge* amount of time compared to debating a hundred RfM's.

Question, since this is new since I was an admin: Aren't the tags on redirects supposed to indicate why the page exists? Alt capitalization, alt spelling, alt name, common misspelling, rd with page history to be preserved, rd that is a potential page split -- isn't it considered appropriate to use the appropriate tag? Because fixing the tag is what people seem to be most upset about. — kwami (talk) 22:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I've had several encountets with kwami, sometimes agreed and occasionally disagreed, but always found him polite and willing to discuss. I hace a hard time taking the 'not here' accusation seriously. Jeppiz (talk) 00:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lolly salad

A contributor to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lolly salad has moved the page being discussed to what he believes is a better target. Wikipedia rules state that you should not move a page during a deletion discussion. I believe he did so in good faith, and has also tried to improve the article in question, but I would like an admin to take a look and see if the article should be moved back for the remainder of the discussion.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure about that rule? WP:AFDEQ merely says that a move can confuse the discussion and some other undesirable things, and that there is no prohibition against a move during an AfD. I think the theory of allowing a move is that the article should be presented in the best possible light in order to determine whether it is still worth deleting. In this case, the answer is yes, it should be deleted, as it's just a joke neologism. Johnuniq (talk) 05:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

FC CSKA Sofia players

Would somebody have a look at FC CSKA Sofia players that has been moved from Category:PFC CSKA Sofia players, please? Pinging page mover Darkanor. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

It's because the page has been moved (to FC CSKA Sofia), the club appears to have changed their name, see e.g. official Facebook page which uses 'FC'. GiantSnowman 08:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, GiantSnowman, but you edited my post. The cat was moved to mainspace, please have a look again. Several other moves have been performed as well. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, sorry - I have moved back into category space. GiantSnowman 08:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sure Darkanor meant well, but as a result of multiple moves we now have (a) empty categories: Category:PFC CSKA Sofia players, Category:CSKA Sofia players, and Category:Players, and (b) articles named "PFC" rather than "FC" e.g. PFC CSKA Sofia in European football and 2015–16 PFC CSKA Sofia season. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:43, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Darkanor, why was PFC CSKA Sofia first moved to FC CSKA Sofia (edit summary:The name of the club is changed from PFC CSKA Sofia to FC CSKA Sofia), but then moved back again? -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@Sam Sailor: - right I have merged the histories into the current category Category:FC CSKA Sofia players - however if the club has not changed its name and should be at 'PFC' rather than 'FC' then the category will need moving back to Category:PFC CSKA Sofia players.

@Darkanor: if you continue to basically dick around moving pages here, there and everywhere then you will be blocked for disruption, understood? GiantSnowman 08:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

User:LilDennie Wikipedia (talk - contribs)

Despite any warning and a block in September, after this report, this user continues to contribute in write-only, creating non notable pages deleted more times. Wuchoo Know was created 3 times in 4 days (please note: with no meaningful content), and few days after, he/she created Wuchoo Know (Nicki Minaj song), deleted in semptember and created again yesterday (see AFD page). Other creations include U Got What I Need, the nonsense Template:PIOTL, Black Friday: Kimmie Blanco Reloaded, Kimmie Blanco Reloaded. Other edits, few days ago, includes lots of rollbacked contribs (ex.: [322], [323], [324], [325] etc), and other. So, with more than 20 warning notices, 2 blocks (user is now blocked for a week), all ignored, he/she continues in write-only and, also after the 5th creation of "Wuchoo Know", it looks like clear vandalism, IMHO. I request an indef ban per WP:NOTHERE and persistent vandalism. Regards.--Dэя-Бøяg 03:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I would support an indef given the user's edit history. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd also support and indefinite ban, the user removed the AfD notice from Wuchoo Know (Nicki Minaj song) a total of six times (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 6) without even contributing to the discussion, even though they were appropriately warned each time. This, along with their hoax articles Black Friday: Kimmie Blanco Reloaded, Kimmie Blanco Reloaded shows that their not here to improve the site at all. Azealia911 _talk 13:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Wow! I didn't notice that there were also hoaxes. So, the intent looks like clear. --Dэя-Бøяg 15:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Yep, indeed, just an unimaginative re-title of her rival Nicki Minaj's album Pink Friday: Roman Reloaded, probably inspired as a continuation of her parodying of Pink Friday in the form of Black Friday Azealia911 _talk 11:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi

• Ahmed Mohamed clock incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Winkelvi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The editing environment at Ahmed Mohamed clock incident and the associated talk page is bad, and everyone there (myself included) needs to to work better at focusing on article content rather than attacks. Even in that context, though, I feel that User:Winkelvi has repeatedly crossed the line, and their disruption is making any sort of improvement in the tone impossible. Yesterday got into a bit of a row with them and figured a little time would do us both well, but today their replies to posts as carefully worded as I know how have continued to be attacks. I think per their comment here that Winkelvi is misinterpreting discussion on a contentious topic with BLP concerns as obstinance, but that doesn't really help me see a path forward. Help de-escalating the situation would be appreciated.

Examples of edits I find inappropriate:

• linking off-Wiki attacks on another editor
• restoring links to off-Wiki attacks on another editor
• [326]
• accusation of "intimidation"

Attempts to resolve the issue on the user's talk page [327], [328]. Notified here.

Thanks,

VQuakr (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

That Reddit discussion is toxic and really has no place being linked on the talk page. Talk pages are for improving the article, and pointing out how people in an anti-Wikipedia subreddit feel about the article doesn't help one bit. clpo13_(talk) 23:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

So, VQuakr, are you reporting yourself? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

In the sense that my edits are going to be scrutinized due to my posting here, sure. VQuakr (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the article talk page, VQuakr clearly had consensus on their side. Winkelvi's edits were opposed because they served to obfuscate the central events/facts in the teen-clock-arrest episode through euphemism and poor wording. Winkelvi also attempted to introduce the weasel word "claim" into the lead, in a way that cast suspicion on the teenager Ahmed Mohamed. I have no idea if any of this requires an admin response, but VQuakr's behavior appears correct at Ahmed Mohamed clock incident. -Darouet (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• Winkelvi, can we have another strong reminder about the need to be WP:CIVIL in your conduct and communication[329] with other editors. Do you have suggestion about what we do this time (/next time) your user-ID appears here with diffs showing lack of WP:CIVILity in interaction. —Sladen (talk) 05:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Winkelvi, given[330], will you be able to find time to reply to the thread here on ANI? —Sladen (talk) 19:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Judging from the radio silence I surmise the answer is in the negative. By the way, in noting the diff posted by Sladen above, I found that it is a reference to this edit of another user's comment at an AfD that was questionable to say the least. I can understand the redaction, maybe, but removing the IP's comment, later reverted by another use, was both unexplained and unwarranted. Coretheapple (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Not "unexplained". As far as not commenting here: not interested in giving credence to the attempt by the filer in selectively and discriminately stirring the drama shit pot. As it seems you are attempting to (once again) do in regard to me, Coretheapple. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
        • Well I'm glad you dealt with that. How are you going to deal with this WP:CIVIL issue? Coretheapple (talk) 15:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Having looked over Winkelvi's talk page, there was a request earlier today[331] from Checkingfax for further information about why Checkingfax might had received a warning from Winkelvi (the warning is presumably [332]—reverted immediately by [333] by Calidum. I'll concur that the language appears to be polite on this occasion, but the assertion of "Looks pretty clear to me." instead of explanation, or even WP:DIFFS is concerning. Furthermore, I observe that the prompting to Winkelvi to perhaps engage got silently removed[334]. If this "radio silence" (/apparent unwillingness to engage in follow-ups) is widespread in so-many of these [attempted] interactions with Winkelvi this could be perhaps the source of some of the difficulties, leading to the tension and subsequent temptation for in-WP:CIVILility. —Sladen (talk) 07:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC) …And, I see we now have WP:ANI#User:Checkingfax reported by User:Winkelvi over at ANI.

• Checkingfax was engaged in deadnaming re Caitlin Jenner and may also have been logging out to avoid scrutiny, I have issued a warning about that [335] since that, at least, is unambiguously unacceptable. Guy (Help!) 10:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Guy, thank you for taking the time to communicate and follow-up with Checkingfax, and for introducing a new term to myself and others Hopefully Guy's warning can be useful to Winkelvi in order to to see the way the warning was given, and the follow-ups engaged and replied to at User talk:Checkingfax#Warning. Regarding socking, Guy/Winkelvi, if there is a basis to presume sock-puppetry, the appropriate action would be to file it at WP:SPI and await a formal a response from a CU. It is unfair to (all) editors, to sustain an allegation without diffs/investigation—particular in a high-stakes/high-stress situation such as this. —Sladen (talk) 08:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Checkingfax seems to have gotten the message[336]. Winkelvi, not. Coretheapple (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
• Just noting that my revert mentioned above was accidental and I immediately self-reverted, as explained on my talk page. I have nothing further to add. Calidum 18:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Kim Davis

We have a recent RfC which I closed as providing clear support for one article on the ongoing Kentucky same-sex marriage brouhaha. We currently have:

• Kim Davis (county clerk) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), for which I procedurally closed an AfD; this and the Davis article are effectively a pair of POV forks.
• Miller v. Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), the best of the three by a long shot in terms of Wikipedia standards

It's not clear if the lawsuit is covered by the RfC, I would argue that it is since it is all one event. There's a move debate underway at the Kim Davis article, aimed at settling the question of whether the merged article should be presented as a biography or as an article on the event. I am persuaded that the event is the right answer, as is Jimbo according to comments on his talk page, but there is a lot of passion here for keeping it as a bio, for whatever reason.

I think some additional admin eyes are needed, to guide the process. A history merge of the three (or at least the first two) might be appropriate. Guy (Help!) 10:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

A history merge would be highly inappropriate and confusing because there haven't been any cut-and-paste moves involved here. Graham87 14:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Respectfully, although I'm sure the admin corps appreciates the notification, I don't think there's any good that can come of having parallel discussions here and on the talk page. This is purely a content dispute, and not worth ANI's time at this point (we might get there, but not yet). May I suggest this thread be closed? I considered closing it myself but I'm involved to the extent that non-administrators can be. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not a "parallel discussion", it's exactly what it says it is: a call for more eyes. Tempers are frayed at the talk page, with a lot of people who don't like the RfC closure, trying to end-run round it. Guy (Help!) 17:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Just thinking of the inevitable revert war when consensus is finally enacted at whatever result it comes to. Guy (Help!) 17:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course, but we can't do anything about that now, and the proper venue is thataway. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Meh. I just want an end to this sordid little affair. We have three articles including a faux-biography all covering the same bit of bigotry. Only one of them is compliant with policy, as far as I can tell, and people have become way too invested in it. As expected, since it involves the unholy trinity of politics, religion and sexuality. Graham is right, though, it was a silly idea of mine. Guy (Help!) 18:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Guy, we appreciate that you were sincerely only trying to help. Our objection to your behavior is very simple: Unfortunately, you complicated a situation that for weeks we have actively been trying to simplify. You advanced a pet idea of your own that was out of scope to the one had been discussing. Almost no one was talking about the article Miller v. Davis. Yet you introduced it and promoted it as a possible and important viable option, totally without any consensus. Adding an additional option like that, where it did not exist as an option before, was how you complicated the situation. You see, when we !voted recently to have only one article, we meant: One article: Kim Davis (county clerk) (a heavily researched and heavily contributed-to article), or two articles: 1:Kim Davis (county clerk) and 2:Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy (an article that had simply been copied directly from the Kim Davis article that then became neglected as the Kim Davis article grew, before it was deleted/merged/made no longer applicable this week). There was no third option. The issue you tried to help us with is settling the question of whether the heavily researched Kim Davis article should be presented as a biography or as an event. On this, you and I agree: I, too, am persuaded that an event article is the right answer. (Note: The other main involved editor, MrX, disagrees for some reason.) That is why I proposed the move from the biography article Kim Davis (county clerk) to an event article Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy. Then you came along and ruined everything, really, by trying to distract everyone from the open move discussion and to focus instead on a poll that you created that had the additional option. You shouldn't have done that. Miller v. Davis is an important article of course, but it has a different goal than the Kim Davis article (its goal is to present the story of the now-infamous court case; the goal of the Kim Davis article is either to present the story of her biography or to present the story of the controversy event). You should have facilitated what MrX and I, the involved editors, were trying to accomplish. I hope I explained this in a neutral and clear way. What do you have to say for yourself? Prhartcom (talk) 22:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

That phrase "what do you have to say for yourself" - I used to use that to my children when they were teenagers.

The consensus is for one article. That means, at the very least, a merger of the faux-biography and the article on the Kentucky same-sex marriage silliness. There's a third article, Miller v. Davis, that is vastly better than either. If you think that was not included in the scope of "RfC: Two articles or one? (Or three?)" then I venture to suggest you are wrong, but it is a question over which reasonable people may disagree. Reasonable people are, alas, in short supply with respect to this particular set of articles, hence of course the problem.

Step 1: decide on the correct title for the one article (per my discussion at the bottom). Step 2: Decide whether Miller v. Davis is part of the grand merger.

But first, Step 0: stop assuming that everybody who does not see things your way is evil, or that this is the single most pressing issue in the history of Wikipedia ever. I wanted to discuss this here not my talk page because it is complex and admin intervention is IMO long overdue. I checked my reading of the situation with Jimbo, since I know from long experience that biographies are something where he has a clear view and can see through the smoke to the real core issues - in short, I trust him (and I think he trusts me, from the exchanges we've had).

This is, make no mistake, a WP:BLP issue. There are many strong feelings in play. There are people with a visceral hatred for gay marriage, who consider Davis to be a martyr comparable to Rosa Parks. Others think she is a bigot and a hypocrite. Some have a deep religious conviction that homosexuality in any form is sinful. Others have an equally deep conviction that gay marriage is a human rights issue. Some of us know a former WMF employee and much beloved Wikipedian who is gay, married and a priest. We recognise that it's messy. We want to be fair to all concerned, even if it means being fair to a bigot. And that's what I have to say for myself. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

"we appreciate that you were sincerely only trying to help. Our objection to your behavior..." Precisely who is "we"? I hope you're not referring to everyone at the talk page or who have been editing the article, because it would be wrong of you to speak for everyone and/or to assume everyone there is on your side/against Guy. If that's not to whom you are referring, I further hope you are not saying anything that would indicate there is an editing cabal happening there (even though, from what I can see and have experienced at the political/controversy/religion/sexual orientation-related articles lately, that appears to be the case). A clarification on "we" would be helpful, {U|Prhartcom}}. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

In your retort above, you simply restated your position. I know your position; I had stated it to you, so that you would know that I know it. You didn't state my position or acknowledge anything that I said. This is teenager behavior (the way my own teenagers used to behave with me and other adults).

You may have missed the part about how much you and I agree on some important, key things.

I wonder if you would please close the move discussion soon for us? Prhartcom (talk) 01:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• The Kim Davis article was AfDed twice already in the past 40 days (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Davis (county clerk) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Davis (county clerk) (2nd nomination)) and both of the extensive debates resulted SNOW Keep (and a clear decision against merging into the litigation/controversy article[s]). We cannot override that, personal opinions and non-binding RfCs notwithstanding, without a third AfD. No matter who does what, the AfDs can't be overridden without a third AfD, which would be the second in less than a week. Softlavender (talk) 01:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC) Likewise, a WP:MERGE cannot be carried out via an RfC or a WP:RM. So the RfC is in itself meaningless, except possibly as a prelude for further AfDs or a WP:MERGE request (perhaps the two litigation articles should be merged via an official WP:MERGE request). Softlavender (talk) 01:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The choices have always excluded Miller v. Davis. It has never been part of the discussions regarding titles, deletions, merges, etc.. The discussions and RfCs have always been about Kim Davis (county clerk) and the improperly-created copy/paste Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy. The last is now a redirect, since the unique content was extremely minimal and already mentioned in the Kim Davis article. It should no longer be part of the discussion.

This leaves us with the issue of what to do with the Kim Davis article, since the Miller v. Davis article is a perfectly good standalone article, which is already covered in the Kim Davis article, per WP:SPINOFF, with a hatnote "main" link.

The current RfC discussion is now complicated by an improper and confusing "competing options" proposition from Guy. That's why we're here at AN/I. It totally fucks up everything by opening the door to straw man arguments. Close that door by only discussing the title change.

The remaining issue is this: We just need a change of title so it actually describes the content, while preserving the history. This has always been, and must remain, the central article, but with a better title. Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy fits the bill perfectly. A move would solve ALL the problems.

Only those unfamiliar with the history of the three articlers, all the RSes used, the multiple RfCs, and the two AfDs would dispute that. Unfortunately, many !voters in the AfDs and RfCs are driveby commenters ("outsiders") who are ignorant of those things, yet their !votes muddy the waters. Outsiders should become informed before !voting. Guy fits that description, hence the odd "merge" closure and "competing options" thread.

Right now the Kim Davis (county clerk) title describes a pure biography, and there is a huge consensus that she doesn't deserve it. (That consensus has been a red thread through all the RfCs, but "outsiders" don't understand that, yet they comment.) This controversy is her only claim to fame. The article's current scope and content are properly weighted to emphasize the controversy, including her central role, which all RS confirm. The new title must reflect that. There is comparatively little purely biographical information, as there should be. Can we just settle this all by moving it to the proper title? Please? -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting the situation. The reason that the content no longer resembles a pure biography because a couple of editors have inserted WP:COATRACK material such as political reactions and "Opposition by other court clerks". Those same editors favor a title (and scope) change. Also, contrary to your claim that there is "a huge consensus that she doesn't deserve it", there is in fact no consensus at this point to change the title or scope of the article from Kim Davis (county clerk) to anything else. In fact, I expect that a closing admin who has actually read our guidelines and policies will see that the arguments refuting BLP1E far outweigh the other arguments.- MrX 19:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

???? You've got it backwards. I'm not proposing changing the scope or content, only changing the title to accurately describe the content. There is a huge consensus that she is not notable enough for a pure biography, but the title is for a pure biography. The move will fix that issue. The few sentences do not constitute a coatrack, and the reactions are perfectly proper content. It's never been a pure biography. The AfDs approved the article twice as a biography with weight on the controversy. That has always been the actual scope and content, but the title doesn't reflect that fact. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

BullRangifer is absolutely correct. Prhartcom (talk) 19:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Ironically, it was the two of you who pushed so strongly to insert content into the article so that it no longer resembles a biography. In any case, BullRangifer, your claim "There is a huge consensus that she is not notable enough for a pure biography" is patently false. I expect better of you.- MrX 19:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I doubt that you could make a case that either of us are responsible for all the content from RS which mention Kim Davis in connection with her objections to issuing same-sex marriage licenses. (There are very few which don't, and they all predate the controversy.) Maybe a minority of it, as would be expected, but there are hundreds of editors who added such content.

Are you forgetting that you created the article, with this content: "Kim Davis is a Rowan County, Kentucky clerk noted for defying the US Supreme Court ruling requiring that she issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples following the Obergefell v. Hodges case.", supported by two refs, and a YouTube video? It immediately becomes apparent that you knew what made her notable ("noted for defying"). You need to get your story straight, because you keep changing sides. You are the one who started the article as a controversy, not a biography, so don't accuse others of doing the same things which you did. Now you want to keep it as a biography. That makes no sense. Both AfDs made it plain that a pure biography would not have survived, and they approved the article with the current content and scope, a biography with main weight on the controversy.

After her notability for those actions was apparent because events kept rolling in that direction, and the beginnings of the article were in place, there were some editors who sought to go back in history to find RS of a purely biographical character, and then add that content to the existing article. (It was with this edit that the very first personal (biographical) content was added.) To some degree that's okay, but that does not erase the reason she is notable. An attempt to then remove the parts documenting that reason and leave a pure biography were unsuccessful, since, as someone only notable for the controversy, what would be left would not survive an AfD. The content documenting why the person became notable must remain in the article. In cases where a controversy has a spillover effect involving many others, a WP:SPINOFF article can be justified, but the content related to the original person still remains in their article. Some of it can be copied and used elsewhere, but not removed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree again with BullRangifer, who speaks very clearly and who provides some irrefutable proof that that it was always inevitable that the Kim Davis article is about a one single event. I mean, if it were about more than one event, why aren't the other events mentioned in the article lead, which introduce the reader to only one thing? MrX, there is no reason to express disappointment with either of us, just as no one expresses disappointment in you. And I'm very sorry to contradict, but it is fairly true that "there is a huge consensus that she is not notable enough for a pure biography", especially when I learn that Jimbo Wales himself even agrees with this, and other respectable people respond to him with their agreement. This consensus isn't necessarily in the formal discussions, though; which have been an exercise in frustration as people often can't seem to focus on the question being asked, and not everyone who knows the right answer has !voted. So, I won't yet say that that it is inevitable that the Kim Davis article will become renamed as an event article. This is a tough one. The article is really both. Prhartcom (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it really is both! Unfortunately, the current title is inadequate because it doesn't include the controversy. We just need a change of title (by moving to the redirect) so it actually describes the content, while preserving the history. Nothing else need be done! Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy fits the bill perfectly. A move would solve ALL the problems and everyone gets their wish: (1) those who want a biography will find some biographical content, and (2) those who want an event article will find a whole lot of content documenting that. Can we just settle this all by moving it to the proper title, the one which accurately describes the actual content? Please? -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

More or less agree with Bull above. The article about the legal case is a standalone article about the case in and of itself, and almost certainly is as notable on its own as the rest of our law case articles are. And, considering it is true that almost all the content at this point relating to Davis herself relates in some way to the existing controversy, and the little that isn't found in articles about the controversy that deserves mention can be fitted in fairly easily to an article by that name, there is no really good current reason not to redirect it. This, however, is acknowledging that as circumstances change, including book deals, TV appearances, and god knows what all else in the future, the redirect from the biography page, if there is to be one, can be turned back into a standalone article covering the additional information available at that time. John Carter (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Yay, John Carter is someone else who is talks sense! John, you may want to stop by #User JzG: ADMINACCT and INVOLVED and give your voice below, as that case is about an administrator who pretended to organize the situation for us poor editors but whose motivation was actually to force the discussion into his pet idea that had never been discussed: combine the Kim Davis article with the Miller v. Davis. Yes, really. And John is also is correct when he says we don't know now, but perhaps Kim Davis will write a book or otherwise become notable for more than one event, at which point in time we certainly do have a second, biography article. John, thanks for your support; please keep an eye on the Talk:Kim_Davis (county clerk)#Requested move 6 October 2015 discussion. Prhartcom (talk) 23:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Dr. Blofeld

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

comment removed NE Ent 21:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Dealt with by Ritchie333 and "matter closed", in his words. Time to move on, drop the stick and be constructive. - SchroCat (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Admin endorsed close. (although I don't think is should be needed) Let's move on User:Ched Could an admin please remove the personal attacks [337] that User:Dr Blofeld made towards me on another user's talk page? Any help is appreciated. Thanks. Caden cool 16:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC) I have had a word privately with Blofeld - matter closed, I hope. I will say that this edit from you wasn't very nice either. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC) A private word off wiki? Well sorry but that is not good. BTW are you saying his personal attack towards Light show was ok with you? I realize Blo is your friend so I can see how you would ignore his bad behavior. However its unacceptable since you are an admin. Caden cool 16:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC) It's an in joke based on what Cassianto said to Caden previously about Caden's love of porn. I know Cassianto has a lot on his plate right now so I thought it might cheer him up a bit. If you don't want negative comments Caden don't turn up and cause disruption with making comments like this in which you're aggressively looking for a fight. I tried to diminish the situation with this but you reverted it back. Stay well clear of commenting on things and sticking your nose in and I'll not make any jokes about your poor taste in films and exercise, deal?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC) No its not a joke, its a personal attack and a filthy disgusting one at that. As for the Frank Sinatra page, you attacked User:Light show and all I did was share my thoughts on the infobox issue. Caden cool 16:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC) So says the person who professes to "enjoy pornography". You're the monger for the seedy stuff, not me. Light show is banned from Kubrick, Sellers, and uploading images on here or at least was. His vendetta carries over to Charlie Chaplin and others since the Sellers days. He turned up on Sinatra, surprise surprise and yes, nobody cares what he thinks as people know his intentions. That you turned up to endorse somebody as lowly as that says it all. Stay the hell away from commenting and I'll reserve the Caden jokes for a rainy day.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Sorry but the only seedy stuff here is your behavior. Your behavior Blofeld is disgusting. BTW coming to my my talk page to call me a twat was not very nice. Caden cool 17:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC) caden, Don't be disruptive and re-open the thread. Blofeld has amended his comment to remove reference to you "frantically jerking off to smutty videos", so it is no longer there. Time to move on. - SchroCat (talk) 17:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC) This is the most absurd chain of events I have ever seen happen at ANI, and typifies everything wrong with Wikiepdia. An editor is having vulgar sexual insults unrepentantly thrown at them, and this is somehow an ok thing. Shame on you all. Brustopher (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC) The comment (singular) was removed some time ago, so perhaps a brief check on the situation before peanut throwing may have been a better course? - SchroCat (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC) He replaced his explicit comment with innuendo implying the exact same thing, big whoop.[338] Meanwhile there seems to be no admission or understanding that what he's done is actually wrong.Brustopher (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC) The replacement comment could be read in numerous different ways, only one of which is "the exact same thing". Altering to remove the comment is normally seen as an acknowledgement that it was inappropriate in the first place. – SchroCat (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Could somebody please revert schrocat? He's trying to close my report that is not yet resolved. I need a neutral admin to look at all the personal attacks thrown at me here on ANi by blofeld. Furthermore his attack on me has not been changed at all on cassiatos page. Its still a vulgar attack on me. Caden cool 17:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC) I would oppose such. It is resolved, it is just that you apparently personally don't like the resolution. What I think you need is to read WP:THICK. You have made comments regarding yourself which others have made into jokes. Tough. Live with it. I have been the subject of numerous jokes myself, at least in part because of the really bad movie by my name. And you seem to miss the fact that it wasn't an attack, but rather a joke in a part of a comment which is also a form of compliment to the other user in question. I believe that this refusal to acknowledge the closing of this thread may well qualify as WP:TE, and I suggest that both Brustopher and you let it die, before the disruption and tendentiousness here draws attention itself. John Carter (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC) First off I never made any comments regarding to myself or porn. This report has not been properly dealt with at all. And furthermore none of it is joking. Blofeld has been making those type of personal attacks towards me for a long time. So please get your facts correct before coming here. Caden cool 17:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Caden, John Carter is telling you Blofeld was kidding, and you really have no choice but to accept that jokes about an editor masturbating are totally fine: ([339]). I'll bet Ched agrees, and he's a real stickler for personal attacks. RO(talk) 18:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC) No, RO, that is what you are saying. I am saying edit warring is unacceptable. Please cease this attempt of yours to indicate that others who are demonstrably aware of a situation are only capable of the same opinions that you are, who, apparently, have commented here and elsewhere on an unknowing and rather prejudicial jump to conclusions regarding the matter in question. Such willful stupidity and vindictiveness after the fact is more than a little creepy. I had indicated my comments were about the edit-warring, and at no point did I say it was necessarily appropriate, and I don't think any rational person driven by anything but personal vindictiveness would think otherwise. As noted on the recent discussion at your user talk page, you apparently jumped to unfounded assumptions about the matter, particularly regarding the motivations of others, based on no apparent examination of the discussion, and have apparently only posted here in some sort of rather childish attempt at vindictiveness. I regret to say that doesn't actually surprise me much. John Carter (talk) 19:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC) So, edit warring is beyond the pale, but allowing an editor's friends to shut down a valid An/I thread is perfectly acceptable. "And you want to be my latex salesman"! RO(talk) 19:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC) No, the only thing that is really not perfectly acceptable, frankly, at least to me, is your own comments, which seem to regularly assume the worst possible faith on the part of anyone who ever disagrees with you. This, frankly, is something I think I have seen before in you, and that honestly doesn't surprise me. You do realize, by the way, that your repeating of the comments here probably does more to draw attention to the complained about matter than anything else, don't you? That being the case, it would probably be reasonable to see that you are doing more, by your conduct, including your rather judgmental and incorrect opinions about the motivations of others, to draw attention to a comment which has subsequently been changed, and, in that sense, perhaps doing more to draw further attention to a modified remark than pretty much anyone else, right? John Carter (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC) But you are helping by telling Caden to get a sense of humor about the masturbating comment. IS that right? RO(talk) 19:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC) No, but I am telling you that your obnoxious edit summary to the last comment above, and your frankly juvenile comments, including the last one above, are just short of having you taken to ANI for your own conduct. This sort of childish conduct that you have been displaying here is in and of itself unacceptable, and it honestly seems to me that the only reason you are posting here is because, as I indicated above, you were caught in an act of ignorance and are engaging in frankly silly vindictiveness because you can't reasonably deal with it. Your conduct in this thread is in no way acceptable, and, if it should continue, I believe I would be completely justified in starting another thread regarding your conduct here below. John Carter (talk) 19:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Okay. How about a simple question about policy. You warned Caden for edit warring, but SchroCat reverted them twice: ([340]); ([341]) , but you didn't similarly warn them. Why not? RO(talk) 19:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Because it is unacceptable to remove other people's comments from a talk page. I replaced my comments which Caden kept removing; he was lucky not to have had action taken against him for his continued removal. - SchroCat (talk) 19:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC) I think they were trying to revert your questionable closure, not necessarily remove your comments, which I agree is inappropriate. But you are too close to Blofeld to be closing valid An/I threads. RO(talk) 19:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC) There was nothing inappropriate about the close. There is something rather inappropriate about your continual use of the STICK here. Time to drop it and move away. – SchroCat (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC) You aren't neutral enough to close threads about Blofeld, especially this one, which you tried to squelch before anybody even saw it. RO(talk) 19:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC) And it of course is clearly your primary interest to draw as much attention to it as possible. John Carter (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC) I think you've done the best in terms of blowing this up, John, so please, keep telling us that we need to do something else all the while writing more words about this incident than anyone else. You are clearly here to snuff out the report. Any intelligent person can see that. I think it was disgusting that Blofeld tried to intimidate a user with sexual innuendo, but it's even more concerning that he is still defending his tactics as though anyone who crosses him is fair game to anything he deems necessary: ([342]). RO(talk) 21:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC) I contacted Blofeld privately because I predicted if I said "caden has a point - could you fix it?" publicly on here, we would get a big ANI thread full of name calling and dramah, though that appears to have happened in any case. For the record, it's not really acceptable to call someone a twat, and equally it's not really acceptable for somebody to say "I don't give a rat's ass what you think" either. Now, if we're all done here, maybe we could get back to writing an encyclopedia? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC) For the record, everything is great in my private life. I just wanted to dispel that myth before it starts gaining any kind of momentum. It's bullshit threads like this that makes me all the more pleased I'm no longer part of this website, unfortunatley. CassiantoTalk 18:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Glad to hear it Cassianto. I hope you have a great break and come back rested and ready to write! RO(talk) 19:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Comments about sexual habits of editors are never appropriate period. That this thread has anything else to say on the subject is obscene. Even if Dr Blofeld thought is was an OK thing to say, for some unfathomable reason, once the object of his comment objected he should simply have said "sorry, I'll remove it" and we could move on. That kind of crap needs to be REVDELED at the very least, it casts obscene aspersions on an editor in a public forum. Blofeld needs a solid smack or three from a WP:TROUT, at the very least. JbhTalk 19:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC) I'm with User_talk:Jbhunley on this. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Agreed Jbhunley. samtar (msg) 19:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Me too. What a disgusting way to intimidate someone. Shame on you Blofeld! RO(talk) 19:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC) No-one has claimed that the comments were acceptable, so there is nothing to get so wound up about. The comment was removed a few hours ago, and the thread will only generate more heat than anything constructive. Time for everyone to get back to writing the encyclopaedia. – SchroCat (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC) What could be more obscene than professing on your user page to love watching hardcore pornography? Just how many women are treated like sex objects in that industry? His user page is littered with claims of his own sexual habits and features a picture of File:Deauxma-Mutter_Erde_fec.jpg (who is apparently well known for being a MILF according to the image caption). That's filth. If it wasn't he'd not get a ribbing and such comments. Anybody who hosts such content on their user page yet can't stand the "filth" of a light hearted related joke is not to be taken seriously. Get down off your high horse Jb. I'd equally argue that such content on his user page is never appropriate period. Take down the smutty signs and tell him to not turn up unfounded on article talk pages with aggressive posts and he won't get a ribbing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC) What the hell Blofeld? That image IS NOT on my page and I know nothing about MILF. My page is not littered with sexual habits. You are a disgusting filthy liar. Caden cool 21:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Not disputing that the image is not on your page, but I do find that it is included at least at this point in the list of pages that link to it as per here. I admit however that I do not see the image myself, and am somewhat surprised about that. John Carter (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Please don't be uncivil and call other liars. The image is on your user page: it's the image on the "this user enjoys pornography" user box. - SchroCat (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC) It is NOT ON MY PAGE. He is a misleading liar and so are you Schrocat. Caden cool 21:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Thank you for your second gratuitous attack on me. I have told you where the image is on your page, and yet you STILL want to call me a liar. When you finally read my comment above where I've told you where it is, I won't bother holding my breath for an apology. I will repeat, for the hard of understanding: THE IMAGE IS ON YOUR USERPAGE IN THE PORNOGRAPHY USERBOX. I hope that gets through to you. - SchroCat (talk) 21:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Schrocat the personal attack is still on Cass's page and was not removed. It was modified but still is a unacceptable personal attack against me. I want it gone. I do not deserve this! Caden cool 19:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC) It does not read as an attack at all. If it does, you are mis-reading it entirely. – SchroCat (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Give me a break schrocat, you damn well know it's a dirty filthy rotten attack on me. Caden cool 19:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Read again. That's not an attack on you, let alone "a dirty filthy rotten" one. That's beyond even a thin skin, it's reading in something that isn't even there. – SchroCat (talk) 19:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Surely the best thing to do here is compromise and ask Dr Blofeld if they would consider removing the message altogether? I'm sure no one wants all this drama. samtar (msg) 20:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC) The compromise was Dr Blofeld removing the personal attack. As no such attack now exists, it's something of a moot point. - SchroCat (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC) (e-c) Pretty much agree with both of you, although I also agree with Cassianto that dramah-mongering threads like this are a good reason for others to leave. I suppose I would add that possibly mindless repetition of the comments for no very good reason is probably no better, and deserving of the same response. John Carter (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Another editor (JbHunley) above said it best: "That kind of crap needs to be REVDELED at the very least, it casts obscene aspersions on an editor in a public forum." Yes it does cast obscene aspersions on ME in a PUBLIC FORUM and Dr Blofeld should of been blocked for that alone. And this thread should never have been snuffed by his friends either. Caden cool 20:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC) That's absolutely true, but good luck finding an admin with enough courage to do the right thing. Ritchie tried to fast track this as a personal favor (for which he is becoming well known), and SchroCat is way too friendly with Blofeld to be closing reports here on him. It's corruption at it's sleaziest. RO(talk) 20:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC) PMSL! Thanks for the laugh you two. That's the overblown nonsense I've seen round here in a long time. I'm off to do something more useful, like watch paint dry or wash my hair... – SchroCat (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Schrocat, you are by far one of the most irritating and rude editors I have ever seen. Your attitude and behavior towards the abuse I got from Blofeld on this thread are a disgrace to the project. Caden cool 20:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Thank you for the personal attack. Coming from you I will take that as a compliment from any decent editor. Toodle-oo. - SchroCat (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Can someone hat this? Just asking, but I don't think that ongoing discussion, and thus drawing attention to this here, in the most public of places, does anyone any real good. Certainly the repetition of the claims doesn't help. John Carter (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC) John, you totally and utterly disqualified and embarrassed yourself when you told Caden to get a sense of humor about Blofeld's disgusting reference to masturbation: ([343]). Maybe it's you who needs to drop the stick and walk away from this thread. RO(talk) 20:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Drop the stick RO and be constructive doing some editing: this is a pointless exercise that will achieve nothing. - SchroCat (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC) If anyone is wielding a stick here it's you, SchroCat, and those clichés are transparent attempts to key-word someone into oblivion. I have as much a right to comment here as you do. RO(talk) 20:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC) What a rather bizzare thing to claim. I wield no stick here, and I am not talking in clichés (I'm sure the irony of the transparent clichés is lost on you). This matter is closed. Its closure was validated by an admin and several others agree with it. I'm not sure what your goal is, but I'm fairly sure your recent spat with Blofeld has something to do with it. - SchroCat (talk) 20:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Questionable phrase has been altered & above discussion is supposed to be closed. Best ya'll move on. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC) People are just editing through the hat. Like, a lot. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC) what part of the big purple box do people not get? The purple box means the threads closed! Drop the stick and move on!--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 21:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Userbox

It's worth pointing out that the userbox in question is User:Phunting/Userboxes/Pornography, and the image currently being displayed is not the one that was being displayed when Caden added the userbox to his page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Bugs we're all fed up with this thread respect the orange archive box and let it go.--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 22:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying an incorrect claim of fact against Caden should be allowed to stand? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing by User:Rationalobserver

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is no way that I can imagine that this reopening of a closed thread is considered acceptable. The individual explicitly not only refuses to assume good faith, but actively asserts bad faith as being the grounds for reopening the thread, as that editor clearly indicates with the edit summary here. I believe that this action, in accord with the rather grossly unacceptable nature of several of their comments in that thread, are grounds for separate discussion, and am proposing it here. John Carter (talk) 21:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

If it should be closed, it should be closed by a neutral and uninvolved person, not Blofeld's buddies. RO^(talk) 21:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

No the purple box is final, respect the purple archive box! And drop the stick--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 21:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)−

I think a lot of editors have acted a bit rashly and emotively over this issue, hence my revert to try to stop the discussion firing up again (apologies Rationalobserver). I don't agree anything should come off these actions, other than maybe having it reviewed by a new, uninvolved admin, and then dropped. Continuing the discussion (or opening AN/Is such as this) is only making the problem worse I think. samtar ^(msg) 21:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• NE Ent has closed the thread. I was about to do the same and got an edit conflict, so that aspect is over. Rationalobserver should be mindful of not keeping minor disputes going past their sell-by date. Sarah ^(talk) 22:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Now that it's been closed by a neutral party I have no issues with the closure. I will say that everybody, including Blofeld, was still commenting on it, so it was not really closed anyway. RO^(talk) 22:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Materialscientist, abuse of administrative power

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Here's the background: I have been using AutoWikiBrowser to convert external links to the Internet Archive (mostly Wayback Machine) and Google services (Google Books, YouTube, etc.) from HTTP to HTTPS. I did this for a while, until User:Materialscientist revoked my AWB editing rights without giving me much of an explanation. Some other users then brought to my attention that this may violate AWB rule #4 which says edits with AWB must not be "insignificant or inconsequential." And because we could not agree on whether HTTP→HTTPS was significant enough, we agreed on inquiring the community. This was done last month in this RfC on VPR, where I specifically asked whether (a) these edits are a good idea, and (b) they are significant enough for a solitary edit. The outcome was almost unanimously in favor of doing these changes. So finally User:Graeme Bartlett reinstated me as an AWB editor.

So far so good. Over the weekend I started doing those changes on a large number of articles, but yesterday Materialscientist removed my name from the AWB CheckPage again. Upon me asking for the reason, he claims the consensus in the RfC is invalid because it supposedly didn't address the question of significance. I replied that the RfC asked that specifically and Wikipedians supported, but now he does not reply anymore.

I know this a harsh choice of words, but for someone who has been editing Wikipedia for over 11 years now I think I am allowed to call this an abuse of power by an administrator. That's why I want to report this incident here. --bender235 (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, IMO, yes, it is a harsh choice of words. I think it's totally OTT to claim that this is a case of abuse of power, its not in Materialscientist's character. There are nicer ways of going about resolving issues such as these, starting with a more colegial approach to dialogue on talk pages and being a bit more patient for a response. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Kudpung, what does OTT mean? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it means "over the top". Like the way Mel Ott used to hit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

It looks to me that MS reverted their edits, and your name appears on the checkpage. Widr (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, after reading through the RfC I've reverted my removal, and forgot to reply on my talk (sorry, got carried away by some vandal). This thread is based on misunderstanding. Materialscientist (talk) 21:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, if so, then it seems this issue is finally resolved. --bender235 (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kudpung: this issue has been going for months, and it became clear to me that User:Materialscientist does not reply when asked on his talk page, my talk page, or being pinged to reply in a general audience discussion on the topic on AWB talk or WP:VPR. That's why ANI became my last resort. --bender235 (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

In my experience, Materialscientist is a good admin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I can't see an abuse of power here. I enabled AWB for Bender235, then some edits proved controversial, there was a complaint and Bender235 did not stop with AWB, so Materialscientist removed AWB access. Bender235 held a RFC to see if the change was wanted by the community. He requested AWB back again. After he convinced me that he understood what his problem was with AWB I gave it back, but then Materialscientist removed the access and then later restored it, asking for a consensus to be reached first. Anyway I took this to mean that a community consensus is needed as to whether Bender235 should have the AWB permission or not. We don't get a lot of discussion at the Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage and Materialscientist did not comment there, so perhaps here others can have a say here as to whether or not Bender235 should have AWB access. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I certainly would comment if someone pinged me (I don't watch that page). Surely other comments are welcome. Materialscientist (talk) 21:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett: really? You think there needs to be community consensus for me to have AWB rights? You must be kidding. --bender235 (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

RfAWB? Anyway, as I read it, Bender now has a green light (and I support these changes for whatever that's worth). Time to move on maybe. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

If, on occasion, we make edits that gets reverted, we can move on. Would not the same apply for editors who get these enhanced bulk-editing privileges? Sometimes they might be pulled back a bit, and so go back to more conventional editing? In my experience, Materialscientist has been pretty sensible. I also know that he has complained to Bender about some of his mass substitutions, so this is not coming out of the "blue". Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• The RfC was held in the most public venue possible.
• The RfC ran for 20 days, more than enough time.
• The RfC consensus was clear.
• The RfC was framed with a specific and concise proposition. The result is not the slightest bit ambiguous, the community supports these mass changes.

Everything was done right, which is somewhat rare in an RfC. Why on earth would anyone challenge this RfC?? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Isambard: Complaining is not the same as explaining. A complaint is only sufficient when it is common knowledge that a behavior is wrong, which was clearly not the case here. — Sebastian 23:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

If there is indeed agreement that Bender has a green light, then we can close this. Maybe we can choose to see Materialscientist's statement that they're not watching this page as a tacit agreement. In conclusion, it may be useful to point out that several mistakes have been made here:

• bender235's choice of words for this section title was highly polarizing and led several experienced editors jump to MS defence.
• Materialscientist's use of administrative tools before sufficiently explaining why they feel bender needs to stop these edits.
• MS's assertion that despite the consensus for https conversion atRfC on VPR, the conversion still somehow violates AWB rule #4. The logic behind this is not clear to me. — Sebastian 23:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
• For the record I am supporting Bender235 having AWB access, evidenced by my granting it twice. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Block needed on IP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is a rather odd IP 2602:306:25a5:89d9:c538:472e:67ac:992b (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is randomly adding "October 2015" and Category:Halloween songs for a series of articles. When reverted he edit wars the text back in. This user has previously been warned about this, and did the same thing under 2602:306:25A5:89D9:8168:1DCE:9F97:F00A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): he was reported here by Binksternet and blocked by Philg88. Any chance something a little more concrete could happen to this pest? – SchroCat (talk) 08:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Now he's switched to 2602:306:25A5:8489:54FB:5149:4982:80DD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Range block might do it, but I don't know enough about IPv6 to know how much damage that would do. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Both blocked for a month - I can't trace IPv6 addresses but a range block may be a better option here.  Philg88 ^♦talk 08:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Many thanks to you both - much apreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 09:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

2602:306:25a5:8000::/52 rangeblocked for one month. Might have to keep an eye out as these types of edits have been going on for months. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Since when did accessdate become superfluous?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am somewhat concerned by the mass change to articles made here: Special:Contributions/The Original Filfi with the comment, "Remove superfluous accessdates using AWB". I didn't realize it had become superfluous. I missed that discussion. I would have stated that it helps determine the last time a source was known to be active and when it goes dead, it helps to find the info in archives. Should these 400+ edits be reverted or should a discussion be opened? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

1) What steps have you taken to fix this problem on your own before asking for Admins to step in and fix it for you and 2) What do you expect admins to do right now, involving their ability to block, delete, or protect, to fix this problem. If the answer to either question is nothing, there's no reason to post this here right now. --Jayron32 14:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I reverted one and I am asking admins for help because they have told me not to get into edit wars. I am asking for advice. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Did you ask Filfi? Because that seems the easiest path to discovery. --Golbez (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I have, but the editor seems to be done for the day and I am seeking advice rather than get into an edit war. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The Original Filfi wasn't notified on this discussion on ANI so I have done that. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ditto, I've partially reverted one aswell,[344] but as other (useful) changes are intermingled in the same edits it's going to take either a vast amount of time to review and sort the wheat from the chaff, or the alternative is to roll the whole lot back. —Sladen (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A quick sampling of those contribs shows that the access dates were removed from cite templates which don't use the field—book or newspaper sources, for example, which are static and don't care when they were read, unlike a website which may fluctuate and actually requires the field. This is a non-issue. GRAPPLE ^X 15:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

"accessdate without url" is flagged as a CS1 error. I'm not seeing any admin activity needed here (neither because there was no attempt atno failure to get a suitable answer via direct discussion (edited: editor was asked but not yet answered, but also behavior stopped, so not urgent here) nor because it seems to be a content dispute that has basis in long-standing apparent consensus). DMacks (talk) 15:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)To mirror part of my reply at [[345]], "Classes of hard copies are not always immutable, nor intact, nor complete—even when one perhaps expects them to be. |accessdate= gives the confirmation that on that date a retrieved copy indeed contained the claimed information." Whether or not the latest temporal revision of {{citation}} happens to display or not should be relevant to whether carefully collated WP:V information should be deleted or not. Ditto for |chapter=, |section= and a whole bunch of other stuff that some recent versions have been known not to display. —Sladen (talk) 15:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

In addition to that iscussion about this specific set of edits at Template talk:Citation#Strip use of accessdate param?, this topic appears to be a perennial discussion at Help talk:Citation Style 1 (that's probably the right place for it, since that's the style that specifies how/when to use which fields). DMacks (talk) 15:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

And FWIW, most of the first half-dozen I looked at are online citations that just had an empty/missing |url=. For those I've reverted and populated |url= as an example: [346], [347], [348], [349]; hopefully The Original Filfi can do join in and do likewise for the other few hundred upon their return. —Sladen (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User: Dr. Blofeld, again

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could an admin warn Dr Blofeld that abusing the "thank you" thing on wiki to taunt me [350] and harass me is completely unacceptable behavior. I've just about had enough of his abuse. Caden ^cool 19:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh and this [351] was also nothing more but him taunting and harassing me. Caden ^cool 19:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

You just filed an ANI for being thanked for removing seemingly controversial boxes? While I get yelled at and accused of filing "childish" ANIs... LjL (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Go back and read the previous thread on his abuse towards me. Anyway there was only two boxes and none were controversial. But this is not about boxes, its about his abuse and bullying. Caden ^cool 19:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Groan, the time wasting drama queen is back again. No, not taunting, I genuinely thankyou for removing those filthy, disgusting placards. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. At least you're safe from further jokes now. If you didn't want to be seen as a filthy pervert, don't give out the wrong messages to people. An admin please close and I suggest that Caden is given a serious speaking to for trying to cause trouble and prolong this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me if anybody here is a disgusting pervert it is you not me. You are a real piece of work. Caden ^cool 19:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I suggest everyone stop engaging in personal attacks, so as to avoid the need to external prevention. HighInBC 19:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New location for Cause of death vandal?

The Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Cause of death vandal usually operates from Leeds or Keighley in the UK, but two recent IPs from nearby Sale in the UK seem to be doing the same sort of stuff. Is it our old friend, or a new editor?

• 178.101.181.11 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 82.6.168.150 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

The Cause of death vandal was known to change infobox templates from specific ones such as musical artist to the most general one so that he could add missing parameters such as cause of death, spouse, etc. The new IP has done exactly that here and here with comedian infoboxes. Both of these Sale-based IPs are interested in UK politician bios, for instance they both touched the same biography, the second time changing the birth date away from that which is seen widely in the literature. Binksternet (talk) 19:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:BEANS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.176.58.121 (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how WP:BEANS applies here... Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• But the IP was right on Edward Herrmann. Not a vandal edit. Drmies (talk) 00:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The cause of death vandal doesn't always vandalize articles. Bizarrely, he seems to freely mix vandalism, unconstructive edits, and constructive edits. I encountered him a few times back before the LTA report was written, and I remember being perplexed because he would change sourced data to obviously incorrect data in one edit, and then do more-or-less constructive, gnomish edits a few hours later. I don't pretend to understand why. Maybe he vandalizes when he's bored or doesn't like his homework assignment. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
• Geolocation for UK IP addresses should always be taken with a grain of salt, they almost never resolve to the location the person actually is aside from being in the UK. You have to use country based on behavioral evidence. Keegan (talk) 03:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
• What Keegan said ↑, correct as usual.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Another IP just showed up doing the same stuff so I'm moving forward under the assumption that the 178.1xx IPs are the long-term vandal. Binksternet (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• 178.102.30.217 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Legal threats on Tube/Subway Challenge

Raising this here since it's ongoing: shifting IP addresses (apparently socks of User:Palkanetoijala) are making strong legal threats on the Tube Challenge and Subway Challenge articles and talk pages, claiming to be acting on behalf of a challenge world-record holder who wants his name removed from Wikipedia.

They're not being very clear, but so far as I can tell from this talk page, the user wants Wikipedia to include an unspecified (and presumably unsourced) "actual fastest time" for the London record, and believes that holding a sourced world record is some kind of useful bargaining chip because they mistakenly think that Wikipedia does not have the "rights" to mention a person's name without their permission. They seem to be saying that if Wikipedia won't include the unsourced record, then the record holder won't let Wikipedia include the sourced one either, and they've been making capslock "25 days to comply" legal threats as a result.

Since this claims to be coming from a named individual and this IP talk page says "stop this hello contact me by email" and gives an email address, is there someone who could talk to them directly? --McGeddon (talk) 09:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I've dropped them an email through OTRS. Mdann52 (talk) 10:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Previous report on this case Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive900#Legal threat by IP. —Farix (t | c) 11:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

As an addendum, I would also suggest semi-protecting the talk page because the only posts from IPs for the last few days have been to repeat the legal threat. —Farix (t | c) 15:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

It's actually already been semi-protected for this reason, since yesterday. --McGeddon (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for making legal threats. Since this person changes IPs often I made it a short block. HighInBC 01:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Just an FYI, the repeatedly blocked editor has returned with a new IP to edit Tube Challenge. I'll leave it up to others to determine whether to revert the edit or block the editor or reprotect the article. Deli nk (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Article was protected via a request at WP:RFPP. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Did your email get any response, User:Mdann52? IP addresses are still making legal threats and talking about a "war" against Wikipedia on the Tube challenge talk page. --McGeddon (talk) 08:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@McGeddon: As I did this through OTRS, I'm not going to go into too much detail, but I've stopped corresponding due to further legal threats being made in the email discussion. Mdann52 (talk) 09:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mdann52: The question is, is it really Andi James or someone pretending to be him. The writing style doesn't appear to be someone who is an adult or have a very good command of the English language. —Farix (t | c) 11:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

A Tube Challenge forum thread has a user with the same name as the sockmaster making the same threats against Wikipedia in the same tone of voice, with nobody calling him out as an impostor. But it makes no difference if it's an upset world record holder trying to overrule Wikipedia's sourcing policy by making legal threats, or a troll trying to goad Wikipedia into overreacting and blanking Andi's official record - there's been no good reason given for blanking a sourced world record. --McGeddon (talk) 18:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I honestly think it is a troll, especially with the consent shift between first and third person when referring to Andi James. —Farix (t | c) 18:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Continued legal threats made at User talk:94.2.166.80. clpo13_(talk) 21:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

If he continues making legal threats, start blocking him absent talk page. He's not interested in getting unblocked; he's trying to intimidate us into adding in unsourced biographical material.
As an aside, he's trying to put it on Wikipedia because he feels Guinness is screwing him out of the record because evidence requirements weren't met (this assumes the user on the forum is the same person as is making legal threats here). I'm not sure what his motives are for trying to force it onto Wikipedia aside from recognition (and I don't think that's his actual goal); but in essence he is attempting to use Wikipedia in a dispute with Guinness. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 22:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Legal threat

There seems to be some type of legal threat at Talk:Tube Challenge placed by 194.176.105.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) in this edit. I'll leave it up to the admins here to determine how to handle it. Edgeweyes (talk) 12:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Note also the #Legal threats on Tube/Subway Challenge section above. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 12:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Major issue with Justlettersandnumbers and BLP Benjamin Genocchio

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I need help please.

Benjamin Genocchio hired me, as an independent Wikipedia editor, to update his article. His article has been under attack by numerous editors and was in need of a substantial overhaul. I have no prior relationship with Genocchio and have no CIO here. I am just doing my job which is to improve Wikipedia following the guidelines of maintaining a NPOV annotating throughout with high quality references.

User Justlettersandnumbers reverted my edits. Justlettersandnumbers has been negatively editing the Benjamin Genocchio BLP since 19 September 2013. Justlettersandnumbers is also editing Genocchio’s wife’s (Melissa Chiu) BLP article without adding to the quality of the article. Justlettersandnumbers edits current and former employers of Genocchio, including Louise Blouin Media's page, Louise Blouin's personal page, and artnet. Almost all of the edits to these pages are reverts and deletions. Justlettersandnumbers adds back in controversial statements that other editors have removed.

Justlettersandnumbers was the user responsible for tagging user Bgenoochio for CIO. It seems the Wikipedia editors involved in Genocchio’s article have employed a real lack of consideration thus far. Genocchio was editing his own page after potentially libelous statements were being made as a part of the BLP. He admitted to not understanding the guidelines and said he would no longer edit his own page. It is clear from his own user name that he was a newbie who did not yet understand the CIO policy. Genocchio made requests for other editors to research and improve upon his page and that was not done.

I am asking for the assistance of administrators in this matter. It is a difficult situation for subjects of BLPs when their articles are under attack. I took on this project in order to help improve Genocchio’s article as someone who understands the guidelines and standards in place, better than a newbie, that are to be honored at all times while editing Wikipedia.

Please review my edits to Benjamin Genocchio’s article and access them as worthy improvements or not based on their own merit. Please look into user Justlettersandnumbers and stop an editor who appears to be abusing their powers as a Wikipedia insider in this situation. Many thanks to you all for your time and efforts here! Penelope1114 (talk) 05:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Paid editing is a COI. You'll be interested in reading [352].-Serialjoepsycho-(talk) 05:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm looking at the articles talk page and not seeing where you attempted to discuss any issues on this articles talk page. I also don't see where you attempted to talk with them. What I do see is they opened a WP:COIN up against you. I see that coin case was opened before this. It seems like this was opened in retaliation to that COIN. I also see [353] you tried to forumshop this elsewhere until you found it was the wrong location. This is waste of the communities time.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Penelope114: As a paid editor, our Terms of Use has strict requirements for disclosure, which I do not see that you have followed. Please read that page and follow the instructions there. When you have done that, perhaps your complaint can be addressed. In the meantime, do not edit the article directly, follow the instructions at WP:COI and make suggestions at the article's talk page. BMK (talk) 07:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

What BMK said. I've already started a discussion of this user's edits at COIN, as noted above, and this should probably continue there. Other articles affected include Tad Martin (entrepreneur), Heidi Messer, Stephen Messer (entrepreneur), Seth M. Siegel and Vringo. The user has declared a paid connection to some, but not all, of those. There's a fundamental contradiction in "Benjamin Genocchio hired me, as an independent Wikipedia editor" that this user would do well to understand. He/she should probably also be warned not to violate copyrights.

The Benjamin Genocchio page has been on my watchlist since I attempted to remove some of the 900 or so links to artinfo.com ref-spammed by editor JPLei, apparently a Blouin employee (reported here). Looking at the history, I seem to have made several attempts to make it read like an encyclopaedia entry. Louise Blouin and Louise Blouin Media (created by JPLei) are on my watchlist for the same reason. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

There's a bit more history here. Bgenocchio (talk · contribs) was previously editing the article about himself, using two accounts, and was blocked for sockpuppetry. See User Talk:Bgenocchio. There were legal threats relating to whether the article subject quit or was fired from a job. The Wikipedia problems may be spillover from a 2014 dispute between two art-related blogs, reported in the New York Post.[354]. Anyway, others at COIN have trimmed the article down to the bare facts. John Nagle (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Blocking

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Before blocking someone, should an Admin while investigating, question the user about to get blocked and maybe even question other users familiar with the user in question? It would seem more fair to me to conduct an investigation like a court of law. What do you guys think? I was thinking that the user about to get blocked should be able to defend themselves. Fr33d0m0fS33c4 19:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fr33d0m0fSp33c4 (talk • contribs)

1. Generally, Admin give warnings prior to blocking, so editors have knowledge that what they are doing is unacceptable.
2. If an editor is blocked, they typically still have access to their talk page, where they can always make an unblock request.

Is there a particular incident you're referring to, or are you just asking about things in general? Sergecross73 msg me 19:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Context is everything. You give no context. A admin should ask questions to the involved user and others if necessary. It may not be necessary. This is not a court of law.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Just to second Sergecross73 above, the talk page access a blocked user is normally afforded provides a means of making an unblock request and explaining their actions. In the rare cases where someone should not have been blocked, the mistake is often rectified relatively quickly. In all the user reports I have done, admins have always weighed up the contributions and made informed decisions, sometimes declining my report and just warning the user. samtar ^(msg) 19:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Any reason we should not block this extremely obvious and likely block-evading sockpuppet? Guy (Help!) 19:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

To stop the Cabals from taking over wikipedia, because after wikipedia it is the world.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no cabal. Guy (Help!) 20:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Facepalm samtar ^(msg) 20:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Granted, it is not a court of law. I was referring to an incident some time ago where someone had 2 accounts and was blocked for sock puppetry. I don't remember who blocked them or who was blocked. The blocked User wasn't active in-between the time a warning was given and when he was blocked. I'm guessing he got on one day to find that he was blocked, didn't know anything of him about to get blocked. I was wondering if the time between a warning given and the block given should be more than a few hours. Fr33d0m0fS33c4User:Fr33d0m0fSp33c4-User talk:Fr33d0m0fSp33c4 20:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP 80.111.220.238 (repeated reverts at Gender equality)

{{cot| Ip Special:Contributions/80.111.220.238 has twice removed a significant amount of text, which is sourced, from the article Gender equality. This is text from several sections, dealing with different issues. The ip offered no valid explanation - the first edit summary was: "reverted - possible vandalism" and the second summary was "p:badpov. reverting to orginal version. can an admin help please ?". The ip, as can be seen, asked for admin intervention. The text removed was very diverse, addressing different topics. The ip referred to neutrality/pov, but some of the text removed was simply describing international policies adopted on the issue of gender equality: the ip removed the phrase: "In 1978, the Council of Europe passed the Resolution (78) 37 on equality of spouses in civil law.[105]" . The reverts also removed a citation (the one for the phrase "For example, in Australia, until 1983 a husband had to authorise the application by a married woman for a passport" ) - obviously leaving a phrase without citation is unconstructive. If the ip has a problem with specific paragraphs, then they must bring it to talk page, explain what the objections are, and seek consensus; not just cut down huge chucks of sourced text. I brought this issue here because the ip seems to have a non-cooperative, hostile attitude; and I sense a future long edit war; and also because the ip asked for admin intervention in the edit summary. I left a message on the ip's talk page too. I think some intervention is needed here to prevent escalation.2A02:2F01:507F:FFFF:0:0:BC1B:47FB (talk) 19:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

References

The IP 80.111.220.238 continues to revert without offering any explanation. I think there is a need of intervention.2A02:2F01:501F:FFFF:0:0:BC1A:B738 (talk) 07:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected while the two IP users (who are both edit warring but haven't broken 3rr yet) discuss the matter, or one of the article regulars establishes consensus. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Wow. When I looked at that article, it came so close to melting my face off that I thought I might be looking at the Ark of the Covenant. Some assistance cleaning it up would be nice. I will note that there's been absolutely no additional discussion and that OP does seem to have a bit of an ownership issue, at least from what I can see. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't be silly. That only happens in movies. In real life you'd be struck by lightning. EEng (talk) 06:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring over an NPOV tag at Vani Hari

Someone want to do something about this? The problem seems to be about whether there are sufficient academic sources which specifically discount the claims of the subject to establish that they are counted as fringe or worse by the academic community, particularly as this is a BLP, or whether some of her claims are perhaps so far out that they don't receive specific contradiction because they are perhaps just that far out. John Carter (talk) 20:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem is Ronz, who has appeared out of nowhere and waded in with his usual absolute faith in his own correctness. If we counted tag-whining in the same way as blanking, he'd already be at 3RR.

This is a tricky article for NPOV, let alone its past off-wiki canvassing. However the current "issue" is a total non-event. Hari is quoted as, for once, stating a simple and uncontroversial fact - although using it to excuse a previous statement, judged as ignorant. This statement is neither fringe, nor challenged as to whether she actually made it (although you may choose whether to believe it as an excuse or not). There is no need for the tag, and no burning dramah to toast the marshmallows over. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

There are several problems, of which Ronz' exuberant editing is only one. I think he will be more cautious following a note I left him. Guy (Help!) 11:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring User:Joy

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kingdom_of_Enclava&action=history and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Principality_of_Ongal&action=history - Edit warring and removing articles without debate to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Joy. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 10:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

This doesn't even remotely show some edit war. First off, the samples given are on two seperate articles. Two, there appeared to be consensus. No edit war is taking place, maybe User:Vyacheslav is upset because the reverts were of his edits.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

[355]-[356] and [357]-[358] Vyacheslav84 (talk) 13:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

As the big bar at the top of the page says, you must notify users of an ANI thread. I have done so for you. Also, you may want to beware the WP:BOOMERANG Blackmane (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I made an actual effort in reaching out to this user on their user talk page right after undoing their blatant revert, but all I got in return was a slap in the face: an assumption of bad faith through an instant report to the noticeboard.

In other news, I invite everyone else interested in this topic to help build a more general consensus in the RfC at Talk:Liberland. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

face:b00c block collateral

ip addresses with FACE:B00C in their range are used by internet.org app service and not "geologically localized" in that a person in south asia can get allocated an address for sometime which will be later cycled to any person in EU or NA. admins blocking entire ranges because of vandals using this app is causing too much collateral damage by putting innocents in the block range. please look deeply into this, request to all admins. OP considers it very emergency issue and if possible, involving arbcom in this should be done, OP thinksMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no IPv6 range containing the string mentioned in the current list of rangeblocks. What is the exact text of the block message you're seeing? ‑ iridescent 16:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@Iridescent:OP notice when not logged in.OP paste ip now before logging in.

2A03:2880:3010:7FF5:FACE:B00C:0:1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) OP will try post moreMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 17:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

2A03:2880:3010:BFFA:FACE:B00C:0:1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) another. OP using internet.org app, notice all ip has FACE:B00C, all blocked. some vandal on range appear to be from continents outside of OP's currentMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Based on the information provided, I found that the first address is blocked with this rangeblock (2a03:2880:3010:7ff0::/60) by JamesBWatson. The second address is covered under this rangeblock (2a03:2880::/32) by DMacks, related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Najaf ali bhayo. This second block is most likely covering the FACE:B00C addresses. In my opinion, that block is much too broad, covering almost 80 octillion addresses. clpo13_(talk) 18:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

clpo13, no, it's not. The OP has been trying to get this good rangeblock lifted for some time. User_talk:NeilN#FACE:B00C_collateral_victim. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, well there's some needed context. I knew this seemed familiar, too. Thanks. clpo13_(talk) 20:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@Clpo13 and Iridescent:clpo understand point correct, 80 octillion address is proof of the amounted collateral, OP not understand why admins fail to understand issueMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2015 (UTC) 2a03:2880:3010:7ff6:face:b00c:0:1 OP post another nowMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:NOP. Don't want to be blocked? Stop using a proxy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

OP not use proxy, OP use internet.org app, free wikipedia, why not admins understand that all user of app get same string ip? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk • contribs) 17:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC) OP request other admins look in this issue, very important, affect all user of internet.org. OP mention MainetteD @GiantSnowman, MainetteD, and Blackmane:OP forgot sign, OP rementionMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Not entirely sure why I've been pinged, but in any case having read through the SPI page, the persistent disruption and vandalism by that sockmaster is extensive. An open proxy which has access to 80 octillion IP addresses cannot be ignored. The FACE:BOOC IP's used by the internet.org app make sense given that it's a FaceBook initiative. Blackmane (talk) 01:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

OP mention admins because OP believe in good faith, not all user of internet.org vandal, few vandals using app can be blocked on account basis, rangeblock stop all who want do anon edit using internet.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk • contribs) 14:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

OP should read NOP: "Although Wikipedia encourages anyone in the world to contribute, open proxies are often used abusively. MediaWiki, the wiki software that powers Wikipedia, depends on IP addresses for administrator intervention against abuse, especially by anonymous users. Open proxies allow malicious users to change IP addresses rapidly, causing continuous disruption that cannot be stopped by administrators." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)